CDZ True or False about Clinton's private emails and server: Which is Which?

[Care4all]

I do understand that they weren't marked classified at the time, and the classified classification is uneccasarily thrown on the most ridiculous bits of info by the government (which is a whole different topic). But the four emails they mention I believe are considered top secret, a much higher level than classified. Granted top secret after the fact, but still top secret. Essentially the highest classification level, very sensitive info. While it's possibly she could not have forseen this, someone in her position should have definitely known. And from testimony I have been hearing from other government employees is that had this been them, they'd certainly be fired and probably be facing trial. Which is my biggest issue with the email situation. Along with the higher your posistion in office, the less privacy you should have in your work life, IMO. Being you are a PUBLIC SERVANT, and not only responsible with immense amounts of tax dollars, but also lives. So the whole personal server thing irks me a lot as well

Dear sakinago and 320 Years of History
I am thanking your posts as "informative" since you are going through the trouble of trying to cite exact sources and clarify what has been verified or not.

I am still told that there WERE emails marked as TOP SECRET and higher.
I was told to "research the internet" to find this, so I will try, but may need your help.

Are you sure there are no sources online confirming some emails/information WERE marked as "TOP SECRET or higher' and "this is why the information is being withheld".

I see from your posts that some INFORMATION in the emails is classified and is still being treated as such.
So that already tells me this was not safe to use emails for that.

At the very least, this is reckless and poor judgment to use private hackable email for any state business dealing with national security/defense.

I can understand personal emails for events like state dinners, where people might share personal information about people they know personally when planning social events.

But for anything involving issues of defense, security, and purely govt business, I don't care who did what before, that should clearly be on govt emails and servers so it is
ACCOUNTABLE to the govt and public and Freedom of Information requests can be applied to it.

People at "regular businesses" make mistakes all the time of mixing business with personal emails.
That DOES cause problems with companies when something goes wrong, and it is both personal
and affecting professional relations and responsibility.

For Govt business and especially when Defense/Security issues are involved,
Clinton and others should apply a higher standard, and they should know this.
Even if "other people" mixed personal emails before, I can understand that for
govt related "social events" and non-proprietary issues.

But CANNOT understand this for things that are even RELATED to classified/security sensitive matters.
Even if the actual information "may not have been classified" if the MATTER has some classified and
some not, then it is dangerous to start any emails on that if it COULD lead to some classified info later on.

Such matters should CLEARLY NOT be personal or nonproprietary, and should have been
restricted to the respective emails/servers if there is even a RISK of something that COULD be
misused or RISK of some information leaking that COULD jeopardize a classified matter.

So I agree with the gist of what
sakinago is saying about accountability.

I stlll want to dig deeper to find whatever sources are supposedly reporting that
some emails/information WERE marked as TOP SECRET or higher.

If I can't find that, even with your help, I'll try to get the original person who reported this to track down those sources and post what is being cited for that.

Thanks so much, I know this is a lot of trouble to avoid repeating the "he said/she said type of hearsay" circulating on the internet, instead of digging up and finding the original source links that can verify what was established and what hasn't been.

I will try to THANK all the msgs that make some sincere attempt to dig into the real sources and avoid hearsay.

If I miss one, please PM me and let me know so I'll go back and credit the poster.

Everyone else: I appreciate your help and contributions here, each of you. Thank you, too!

I am still told that there WERE emails marked as TOP SECRET and higher.

there were NO emails marked top secret or higher on her server...you can google this and the State dept and Intelligence community agree, none were marked top secret or higher.

If Clinton had used the State.gov email system as all of her employees and as the right wingers claim she should have used,

that state.gov email system is an UNCLASSIFIED system just as her own server was an UNCLASSIFIED system. They were both secure systems, but still neither were Classified systems, but were UNCLASSIFIED systems.

NOTHING classified Top secret is suppose to be on the State.gov email system, nor her server....again, if she had a gvt email account, it would be no more safe than her own server for top secret stuff....in fact, the State.gov system is hacked frequently by both Russia and China, while the FBI said after reviewing her security logs for her system, there was no indication her system was ever hacked.

Top Secret classified information is on an entirely different system, that NEVER has access to an email system or the internet...top secret stuff is on a CLOSED in house system....which she does have an account with, along with her top aides...but nothing on the in house T/S system can be retrieved and emailed.

one of the lengthy email chains that is now being marked Top Secret and is now being put on the top secret system was an email chain among her aids where they communicated with each other giving ideas and thoughts on an unclassified gvt document....their comments contained classified information is what the IC IG stated. This email chain was on the State.gov email system which is the unclassified gvt system was passed back and forth on this system for 2 years, before 1 of her aids forwarded this email chain to Clinton.

Another 1 of the now classified T/S emails was an email from Syd Blumenthal, (a journalist and friend)...the information he sent her, which came from his own public sources and was information available from public sources for anyone to get their hands on is another of the email chains claimed to be top secret.

NONE, were on the govt's TOP SECRET system at the time she received them....

NONE of her aides took top secret documents off of the top secret govt system and forwarded them to her.

EVERYONE KNEW she was using her own server...any one who worked with her, anyone who ever emailed her, everyone she had ever emailed KNEW she was using a private server. IT WAS NEVER A SECRET, the State dept discussed it openly before it was even set up....there was never anything secretive about it....there are emails released on an FOIA that shows the State Dept was also well aware, besides the fact that her email address shows that she was using a private server.

In fairness to emilynghiem, she stated she's not an IT "guru." I get that, and it's appropriate that she's share that. It indicates that her remarks are driven by what she does understand and not the full picture of things. That said, I also think when one knows one isn't fully aware of the whole "scoop" re: "whatever," one has an obligation to refrain from "adding fuel to a fire" by speculating about what might be.

Red:
In the interest of being precise and clear, the woman had multiple email address, even multiple ".gov" ones, so the only folks who would or could without question know are the folks who sent/received emails to/from that ".com" email address. There are scads of folks, at State and not at State, who may never have had any interaction with her personal email address.

Truly, I think some folks perceive "private server" to have entirely the same context as does "private memories in one's head," or that of things being private as in "what one does in one's bedroom is private." That's not the context in this situation. It just means, this case, her server rather than DoS' server, and it means the whole world doesn't inherently have access to it. It's not a server snuck in on the DL and nobody knows she's using it or any thing even close to that.

These days, the only thing that's truly secret, truly private, are things that have zero connection/interaction with the world outside itself. And IT stuff of that sort doesn't send or receive email to anything.

Dear 320 Years of History
Do you agree with the assessment that:
1. Clinton knew that by using private email this can't be recorded or reported for Freedom of Information requested as emails that go through the govt system.
2. And that this WILL create the APPEARANCE of "skirting" that?
That by conducting ALL state business this way is going to give the wrong impression.

Again, to be perfectly honest, I have ethical issues with a govt leader
who either doesn't know 1 and 2 or doesn't care what impression and consequences this has.

I guess I am used to working with honest legal professionals who, the minute they sense
that something can even RISK APPEARING as a conflict and raise questions, they refuse
and refer it to someone else. Are my standards too high to expect govt officials to avoid risks like this?

Either the risk of a security breach "that will be blamed on them if they don't use the govt system
so the govt can take the blame not them"
or risk of appearing to skirt accountability and possibly be hiding private dealings by private server?

The FBI has said that all of her private/personal emails that she did not send to the govt archives to be archived, were NOT wiped off of her server and they have had them in their hands for review since last August, when her lawyer turned over her server to the FBI....if she was trying to hide something in her personal affairs, the govt has it all....

AND the gvt rules are that no gvt employee should ever send strictly personal emails to the govt archives, to only forward to them govt documents and govt involved emails...

 

[depotoo]

What about her saying to use her unsecure line?-
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-06322 Doc No. C05939759 Date: 04/29/2016 Obtained via FOIA by Judicial. Watch, Inc. From: Sent: To: Subject: H <hdr22@clintonemail com> Sunday, February 22, 2009 10·08 PM Cheryl Millsc___ _______ __J Re: Can we talk tonight? Pis try again1,_ __ __, From: "Cheryl Mills" Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:02:23 -0500 To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Can we talk tonight? Jusl dul -no answer ·-----Origmal Message---From · H <hdr22@cbntonemoiLcom> To: Cheryl Mills Sent' Sun Feb 22 22:01:52 2009 Suhjed: Re Can we talk lomghl'l I give up Call me on my home#. ------Onginal Message-----From: Cheryl Mills To: hdr22@clintonc;maiLcom Sent: Feb 22, 2009 9·39 PM Subject. RE· Can we talk tonight? the:y were supposed to com1ect us -I called some time ago to do a secure call with you-· call them and ask them to try the connection ·----Origmal Message----From: H (maiJto:[email protected]] Sent: Stmdoy, February 22, 2009 9:39 PM To: Cheryl Mills Subject: Re Can we talk tonight? Are you calling me? What#? I called ops and they gave me your "secure"· cell which I just tned but only got a long high pitched whining sound. -----Original Messlige-----From · Cheryl Mills To: hdr22@clintonemail corn Sent: Feb 22, 2009 8:58 PM Suhjecl· Re Can we talk lonighl? I can do now -----Origrnal Message--From H <[email protected]> To Cheryl Mills Sent: Swi. Feb 22 J 8·37:51 2009 Subject: Con we talk tonight? I just landed and\\ ·u be home short! We your conveiuence works

And Unclassified? Unclassified material and an unsecure server are 2 different things. The state dept server was secured. Thus why the Kenyan Ambassador was forced out. From the i spector generals report-

Very soon after the Ambassador’s arrival in May 2011, he broadcast his lack of confidence in the information management staff. Because the information management office could not change the Department’s policy for handling Sensitive But Unclassified material, he assumed charge of the mission’s information management operations. He ordered a commercial Internet connection installed in his embassy office bathroom so he could work there on a laptop not connected to the Department email system. He drafted and distributed a mission policy authorizing himself and other mission personnel to use commercial email for daily communication of official government business. During the inspection, the Ambassador continued to use commercial email for official government business. The Department email system provides automatic security, record-keeping, and backup functions as required. The Ambassador’s requirements for use of commercial email in the office and his flouting of direct instructions to adhere to Department policy have placed the information management staff in a conundrum: balancing the desire to be responsive to their mission leader and the need to adhere to Department regulations and government information security standards. The Ambassador compounded the problem on several occasions by publicly berating members of the staff, attacking them personally, loudly questioning their competence, and threatening career-ending disciplinary actions. These actions have sapped the resources and morale of a busy and understaffed information management staff as it supports the largest embassy in sub-Saharan Africa.

That states clearly the State Dept system was a secured system
https://web.archive.org/web/20140701090847/http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/196460.pdf

The State department used State.gov as their daily working email system....even though it was an UNCLASSIFIED system, they used it for classified information up to the Secret and above level, and when there was an FOIA REQUEST, their procedure was to go through the emails being released on an FOIA and classify them at the time of release.

THIS WAS THEIR procedure for ALL state departments under all the different SOS's PRIOR to Clinton as well.

The State department used State.gov as their daily working email system....even though it was an UNCLASSIFIED system, they used it for classified information up to the Secret and above level, and when there was an FOIA REQUEST, their procedure was to go through the emails being released on an FOIA and classify them at the time of release.

THIS WAS THEIR procedure for ALL state departments under all the different SOS's PRIOR to Clinton as well.

 

[emilynghiem]

That said. This reminds me of the hundred million pieces of legislation the Republicans introduced to turn over the health care reform that was actually their own idea

Ravi FALSE
This idea that the Republicans pushed this first has been debunked and corrected several times that I can cite.
No, Obamacare Wasn't a "Republican" Proposal
Column: Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate

1. the insurance was for "catastrophic" only and never intended to give feds control over all health care.
2. the policy passed in Massachusetts under Romney is on a state level not federal
while Democrats/liberals generally do not make as big a deal over the difference between state and federal,
this is a MAJOR difference for conservatives.
3. the votes on this previously failed. If you look at how Obama got it to pass, you will find last minute deals made giving special deals to certain states to buy their votes, which people did find out and complain about.
Both sides of opposition from left and right cite the deals Obama made with CORPORATE INSURANCE interests, including paying them trillions in advance to make the changes needed; and it is clear these corporate lobbyists help write the bill and added the condition of the mandates requiring insurance. When Obama was asked about changing the mandate, he even cited that he couldn't change this because of terms agreed on with insurance companies. So this is a hybrid deal with groups outside of govt jurisdiction that citizens have no power to check, yet we are REQUIRED to pay into it without it being accountable to the public.

NO Republican or Conservative would ever agree to that, and Ravi if you look at the votes, it reflects that exactly. The only reason it passed was the Democrats who support a President and agenda from their PARTY but this violates Constitutional process requiring an amendment before expanding the duties of federal govt outside what is given in the Constitution.

Common sense ALONE should tell us that EXPANDING FEDERAL involvement in health care goes against everything Republicans have been preaching AGAINST federal interference with
health care since Reagan's statement in the 60's warning where this path will lead.

The argument is that by taking on health care, this holds the citizens hostage to govt.
We no longer have our leverage to tell govt what to do or not do, if we depend on govt for our needs.

Thus, the conservatives argue that this growing dependence on govt has already corrupted the Democratic party, where they buy out the votes with benefits; and now they complain that the GOP has been sold out also, all going for supporting medicare and medicaid to appease the voters and losing their leverage to check govt.

Ravi, if you still don't agree, we can take this into the Bullring.
I have a huge project to help fellow Democrats fix the mess made in our national historic district.
If you want to help raise 10 million towards buying out a district for Black leadership to set up their own campus system for training govt leaders in administration and banking,
I am willing to make a bet with you:
* 5 million says yes, I am a Democrat
* 5 million says no, the health care reform bears such little resemblance to anything supported by Republicans or Conservatives that it violates Constitutional principles and beliefs held by Republicans and Conservatives
(and also goes against the single payer universal care reforms that liberal Democrats and Greens argue for).

Tell me if you still don't believe either one.
I can use the help raising money for progressive causes
since my fellow Democrats sadly put more money into political campaigns
than they do fixing their own problems and saving their own communities.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear sakinago and 320 Years of History
I am thanking your posts as "informative" since you are going through the trouble of trying to cite exact sources and clarify what has been verified or not.

I am still told that there WERE emails marked as TOP SECRET and higher.
I was told to "research the internet" to find this, so I will try, but may need your help.

Are you sure there are no sources online confirming some emails/information WERE marked as "TOP SECRET or higher' and "this is why the information is being withheld".

I see from your posts that some INFORMATION in the emails is classified and is still being treated as such.
So that already tells me this was not safe to use emails for that.

At the very least, this is reckless and poor judgment to use private hackable email for any state business dealing with national security/defense.

I can understand personal emails for events like state dinners, where people might share personal information about people they know personally when planning social events.

But for anything involving issues of defense, security, and purely govt business, I don't care who did what before, that should clearly be on govt emails and servers so it is
ACCOUNTABLE to the govt and public and Freedom of Information requests can be applied to it.

People at "regular businesses" make mistakes all the time of mixing business with personal emails.
That DOES cause problems with companies when something goes wrong, and it is both personal
and affecting professional relations and responsibility.

For Govt business and especially when Defense/Security issues are involved,
Clinton and others should apply a higher standard, and they should know this.
Even if "other people" mixed personal emails before, I can understand that for
govt related "social events" and non-proprietary issues.

But CANNOT understand this for things that are even RELATED to classified/security sensitive matters.
Even if the actual information "may not have been classified" if the MATTER has some classified and
some not, then it is dangerous to start any emails on that if it COULD lead to some classified info later on.

Such matters should CLEARLY NOT be personal or nonproprietary, and should have been
restricted to the respective emails/servers if there is even a RISK of something that COULD be
misused or RISK of some information leaking that COULD jeopardize a classified matter.

So I agree with the gist of what
sakinago is saying about accountability.

I stlll want to dig deeper to find whatever sources are supposedly reporting that
some emails/information WERE marked as TOP SECRET or higher.

If I can't find that, even with your help, I'll try to get the original person who reported this to track down those sources and post what is being cited for that.

Thanks so much, I know this is a lot of trouble to avoid repeating the "he said/she said type of hearsay" circulating on the internet, instead of digging up and finding the original source links that can verify what was established and what hasn't been.

I will try to THANK all the msgs that make some sincere attempt to dig into the real sources and avoid hearsay.

If I miss one, please PM me and let me know so I'll go back and credit the poster.

Everyone else: I appreciate your help and contributions here, each of you. Thank you, too!

I am still told that there WERE emails marked as TOP SECRET and higher.

there were NO emails marked top secret or higher on her server...you can google this and the State dept and Intelligence community agree, none were marked top secret or higher.

If Clinton had used the State.gov email system as all of her employees and as the right wingers claim she should have used,

that state.gov email system is an UNCLASSIFIED system just as her own server was an UNCLASSIFIED system. They were both secure systems, but still neither were Classified systems, but were UNCLASSIFIED systems.

NOTHING classified Top secret is suppose to be on the State.gov email system, nor her server....again, if she had a gvt email account, it would be no more safe than her own server for top secret stuff....in fact, the State.gov system is hacked frequently by both Russia and China, while the FBI said after reviewing her security logs for her system, there was no indication her system was ever hacked.

Top Secret classified information is on an entirely different system, that NEVER has access to an email system or the internet...top secret stuff is on a CLOSED in house system....which she does have an account with, along with her top aides...but nothing on the in house T/S system can be retrieved and emailed.

one of the lengthy email chains that is now being marked Top Secret and is now being put on the top secret system was an email chain among her aids where they communicated with each other giving ideas and thoughts on an unclassified gvt document....their comments contained classified information is what the IC IG stated. This email chain was on the State.gov email system which is the unclassified gvt system was passed back and forth on this system for 2 years, before 1 of her aids forwarded this email chain to Clinton.

Another 1 of the now classified T/S emails was an email from Syd Blumenthal, (a journalist and friend)...the information he sent her, which came from his own public sources and was information available from public sources for anyone to get their hands on is another of the email chains claimed to be top secret.

NONE, were on the govt's TOP SECRET system at the time she received them....

NONE of her aides took top secret documents off of the top secret govt system and forwarded them to her.

EVERYONE KNEW she was using her own server...any one who worked with her, anyone who ever emailed her, everyone she had ever emailed KNEW she was using a private server. IT WAS NEVER A SECRET, the State dept discussed it openly before it was even set up....there was never anything secretive about it....there are emails released on an FOIA that shows the State Dept was also well aware, besides the fact that her email address shows that she was using a private server.

In fairness to emilynghiem, she stated she's not an IT "guru." I get that, and it's appropriate that she's share that. It indicates that her remarks are driven by what she does understand and not the full picture of things. That said, I also think when one knows one isn't fully aware of the whole "scoop" re: "whatever," one has an obligation to refrain from "adding fuel to a fire" by speculating about what might be.

Red:
In the interest of being precise and clear, the woman had multiple email address, even multiple ".gov" ones, so the only folks who would or could without question know are the folks who sent/received emails to/from that ".com" email address. There are scads of folks, at State and not at State, who may never have had any interaction with her personal email address.

Truly, I think some folks perceive "private server" to have entirely the same context as does "private memories in one's head," or that of things being private as in "what one does in one's bedroom is private." That's not the context in this situation. It just means, this case, her server rather than DoS' server, and it means the whole world doesn't inherently have access to it. It's not a server snuck in on the DL and nobody knows she's using it or any thing even close to that.

These days, the only thing that's truly secret, truly private, are things that have zero connection/interaction with the world outside itself. And IT stuff of that sort doesn't send or receive email to anything.

Dear 320 Years of History
Do you agree with the assessment that:
1. Clinton knew that by using private email this can't be recorded or reported for Freedom of Information requested as emails that go through the govt system.
2. And that this WILL create the APPEARANCE of "skirting" that?
That by conducting ALL state business this way is going to give the wrong impression.

Again, to be perfectly honest, I have ethical issues with a govt leader
who either doesn't know 1 and 2 or doesn't care what impression and consequences this has.

I guess I am used to working with honest legal professionals who, the minute they sense
that something can even RISK APPEARING as a conflict and raise questions, they refuse
and refer it to someone else. Are my standards too high to expect govt officials to avoid risks like this?

Either the risk of a security breach "that will be blamed on them if they don't use the govt system
so the govt can take the blame not them"
or risk of appearing to skirt accountability and possibly be hiding private dealings by private server?

The FBI has said that all of her private/personal emails that she did not send to the govt archives to be archived, were NOT wiped off of her server and they have had them in their hands for review since last August, when her lawyer turned over her server to the FBI....if she was trying to hide something in her personal affairs, the govt has it all....

AND the gvt rules are that no gvt employee should ever send strictly personal emails to the govt archives, to only forward to them govt documents and govt involved emails...

Thanks, Care4all can you cite the official source of where the FBI said this?

 

[emilynghiem]

That said. This reminds me of the hundred million pieces of legislation the Republicans introduced to turn over the health care reform that was actually their own idea

Ravi FALSE
This idea that the Republicans pushed this first has been debunked and corrected several times that I can cite.
No, Obamacare Wasn't a "Republican" Proposal
Column: Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate

1. the insurance was for "catastrophic" only and never intended to give feds control over all health care.
2. the policy passed in Massachusetts under Romney is on a state level not federal
while Democrats/liberals generally do not make as big a deal over the difference between state and federal,
this is a MAJOR difference for conservatives.
3. the votes on this previously failed. If you look at how Obama got it to pass, you will find last minute deals made giving special deals to certain states to buy their votes, which people did find out and complain about.
Both sides of opposition from left and right cite the deals Obama made with CORPORATE INSURANCE interests, including paying them trillions in advance to make the changes needed; and it is clear these corporate lobbyists help write the bill and added the condition of the mandates requiring insurance. When Obama was asked about changing the mandate, he even cited that he couldn't change this because of terms agreed on with insurance companies. So this is a hybrid deal with groups outside of govt jurisdiction that citizens have no power to check, yet we are REQUIRED to pay into it without it being accountable to the public.

NO Republican or Conservative would ever agree to that, and Ravi if you look at the votes, it reflects that exactly. The only reason it passed was the Democrats who support a President and agenda from their PARTY but this violates Constitutional process requiring an amendment before expanding the duties of federal govt outside what is given in the Constitution.

Common sense ALONE should tell us that EXPANDING FEDERAL involvement in health care goes against everything Republicans have been preaching AGAINST federal interference with
health care since Reagan's statement in the 60's warning where this path will lead.

The argument is that by taking on health care, this holds the citizens hostage to govt.
We no longer have our leverage to tell govt what to do or not do, if we depend on govt for our needs.

Thus, the conservatives argue that this growing dependence on govt has already corrupted the Democratic party, where they buy out the votes with benefits; and now they complain that the GOP has been sold out also, all going for supporting medicare and medicaid to appease the voters and losing their leverage to check govt.

Ravi, if you still don't agree, we can take this into the Bullring.
I have a huge project to help fellow Democrats fix the mess made in our national historic district.
If you want to help raise 10 million towards buying out a district for Black leadership to set up their own campus system for training govt leaders in administration and banking,
I am willing to make a bet with you:
* 5 million says yes, I am a Democrat
* 5 million says no, the health care reform bears such little resemblance to anything supported by Republicans or Conservatives that it violates Constitutional principles and beliefs held by Republicans and Conservatives
(and also goes against the single payer universal care reforms that liberal Democrats and Greens argue for).

Tell me if you still don't believe either one.
I can use the help raising money for progressive causes
since my fellow Democrats sadly put more money into political campaigns
than they do fixing their own problems and saving their own communities.

Uh, no, troll.

Show me one message I have posted, in a serious forum ie not the flame zone etc,
where I didn't address or respond with SERIOUS content.

Can you show me a trolling message Ravi?

NOTE: if you notice Ravi even when I respond to "trolls or trolling msgs"
I try to draw out that person and ENGAGE them in real content and discussion.
I try to help everyone to bring out their best ideas, to be productive, since it's
going to take forming teams and getting everyone working on solutions
to solve the problems we discuss and debate here. I want REAL solutions,
and since the ones I've shared are too much for people, then I have to
hear where other people are coming from and start from there.

Ravi you do know by now, that the plans I have distributed online, trying to find help,
are signed by Sheila Jackson Lee, and we've had meetings to try to
save the last houses for the plans under a HUD/VA proposal for vets.

You have read these links, right:
Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
Earned Amnesty

I am looking for support, is that what you mean by trolling? Shopping for help?
What do you mean by troll?

 

[depotoo]

She comingled them and then deleted what she considered personal, where they could never be checked for accuracy of that claim. On govt servers ALL emails are archived, whether personal or not. And I am not speaking of within the National Archives.

Dear sakinago and 320 Years of History
I am thanking your posts as "informative" since you are going through the trouble of trying to cite exact sources and clarify what has been verified or not.

I am still told that there WERE emails marked as TOP SECRET and higher.
I was told to "research the internet" to find this, so I will try, but may need your help.

Are you sure there are no sources online confirming some emails/information WERE marked as "TOP SECRET or higher' and "this is why the information is being withheld".

I see from your posts that some INFORMATION in the emails is classified and is still being treated as such.
So that already tells me this was not safe to use emails for that.

At the very least, this is reckless and poor judgment to use private hackable email for any state business dealing with national security/defense.

I can understand personal emails for events like state dinners, where people might share personal information about people they know personally when planning social events.

But for anything involving issues of defense, security, and purely govt business, I don't care who did what before, that should clearly be on govt emails and servers so it is
ACCOUNTABLE to the govt and public and Freedom of Information requests can be applied to it.

People at "regular businesses" make mistakes all the time of mixing business with personal emails.
That DOES cause problems with companies when something goes wrong, and it is both personal
and affecting professional relations and responsibility.

For Govt business and especially when Defense/Security issues are involved,
Clinton and others should apply a higher standard, and they should know this.
Even if "other people" mixed personal emails before, I can understand that for
govt related "social events" and non-proprietary issues.

But CANNOT understand this for things that are even RELATED to classified/security sensitive matters.
Even if the actual information "may not have been classified" if the MATTER has some classified and
some not, then it is dangerous to start any emails on that if it COULD lead to some classified info later on.

Such matters should CLEARLY NOT be personal or nonproprietary, and should have been
restricted to the respective emails/servers if there is even a RISK of something that COULD be
misused or RISK of some information leaking that COULD jeopardize a classified matter.

So I agree with the gist of what
sakinago is saying about accountability.

I stlll want to dig deeper to find whatever sources are supposedly reporting that
some emails/information WERE marked as TOP SECRET or higher.

If I can't find that, even with your help, I'll try to get the original person who reported this to track down those sources and post what is being cited for that.

Thanks so much, I know this is a lot of trouble to avoid repeating the "he said/she said type of hearsay" circulating on the internet, instead of digging up and finding the original source links that can verify what was established and what hasn't been.

I will try to THANK all the msgs that make some sincere attempt to dig into the real sources and avoid hearsay.

If I miss one, please PM me and let me know so I'll go back and credit the poster.

Everyone else: I appreciate your help and contributions here, each of you. Thank you, too!

I am still told that there WERE emails marked as TOP SECRET and higher.

there were NO emails marked top secret or higher on her server...you can google this and the State dept and Intelligence community agree, none were marked top secret or higher.

If Clinton had used the State.gov email system as all of her employees and as the right wingers claim she should have used,

that state.gov email system is an UNCLASSIFIED system just as her own server was an UNCLASSIFIED system. They were both secure systems, but still neither were Classified systems, but were UNCLASSIFIED systems.

NOTHING classified Top secret is suppose to be on the State.gov email system, nor her server....again, if she had a gvt email account, it would be no more safe than her own server for top secret stuff....in fact, the State.gov system is hacked frequently by both Russia and China, while the FBI said after reviewing her security logs for her system, there was no indication her system was ever hacked.

Top Secret classified information is on an entirely different system, that NEVER has access to an email system or the internet...top secret stuff is on a CLOSED in house system....which she does have an account with, along with her top aides...but nothing on the in house T/S system can be retrieved and emailed.

one of the lengthy email chains that is now being marked Top Secret and is now being put on the top secret system was an email chain among her aids where they communicated with each other giving ideas and thoughts on an unclassified gvt document....their comments contained classified information is what the IC IG stated. This email chain was on the State.gov email system which is the unclassified gvt system was passed back and forth on this system for 2 years, before 1 of her aids forwarded this email chain to Clinton.

Another 1 of the now classified T/S emails was an email from Syd Blumenthal, (a journalist and friend)...the information he sent her, which came from his own public sources and was information available from public sources for anyone to get their hands on is another of the email chains claimed to be top secret.

NONE, were on the govt's TOP SECRET system at the time she received them....

NONE of her aides took top secret documents off of the top secret govt system and forwarded them to her.

EVERYONE KNEW she was using her own server...any one who worked with her, anyone who ever emailed her, everyone she had ever emailed KNEW she was using a private server. IT WAS NEVER A SECRET, the State dept discussed it openly before it was even set up....there was never anything secretive about it....there are emails released on an FOIA that shows the State Dept was also well aware, besides the fact that her email address shows that she was using a private server.

In fairness to emilynghiem, she stated she's not an IT "guru." I get that, and it's appropriate that she's share that. It indicates that her remarks are driven by what she does understand and not the full picture of things. That said, I also think when one knows one isn't fully aware of the whole "scoop" re: "whatever," one has an obligation to refrain from "adding fuel to a fire" by speculating about what might be.

Red:
In the interest of being precise and clear, the woman had multiple email address, even multiple ".gov" ones, so the only folks who would or could without question know are the folks who sent/received emails to/from that ".com" email address. There are scads of folks, at State and not at State, who may never have had any interaction with her personal email address.

Truly, I think some folks perceive "private server" to have entirely the same context as does "private memories in one's head," or that of things being private as in "what one does in one's bedroom is private." That's not the context in this situation. It just means, this case, her server rather than DoS' server, and it means the whole world doesn't inherently have access to it. It's not a server snuck in on the DL and nobody knows she's using it or any thing even close to that.

These days, the only thing that's truly secret, truly private, are things that have zero connection/interaction with the world outside itself. And IT stuff of that sort doesn't send or receive email to anything.

Dear 320 Years of History
Do you agree with the assessment that:
1. Clinton knew that by using private email this can't be recorded or reported for Freedom of Information requested as emails that go through the govt system.
2. And that this WILL create the APPEARANCE of "skirting" that?
That by conducting ALL state business this way is going to give the wrong impression.

Again, to be perfectly honest, I have ethical issues with a govt leader
who either doesn't know 1 and 2 or doesn't care what impression and consequences this has.

I guess I am used to working with honest legal professionals who, the minute they sense
that something can even RISK APPEARING as a conflict and raise questions, they refuse
and refer it to someone else. Are my standards too high to expect govt officials to avoid risks like this?

Either the risk of a security breach "that will be blamed on them if they don't use the govt system
so the govt can take the blame not them"
or risk of appearing to skirt accountability and possibly be hiding private dealings by private server?

The FBI has said that all of her private/personal emails that she did not send to the govt archives to be archived, were NOT wiped off of her server and they have had them in their hands for review since last August, when her lawyer turned over her server to the FBI....if she was trying to hide something in her personal affairs, the govt has it all....

AND the gvt rules are that no gvt employee should ever send strictly personal emails to the govt archives, to only forward to them govt documents and govt involved emails...

 

[depotoo]

another video with more inconsistencies noted

 

[emilynghiem]

That said. This reminds me of the hundred million pieces of legislation the Republicans introduced to turn over the health care reform that was actually their own idea

Ravi FALSE
This idea that the Republicans pushed this first has been debunked and corrected several times that I can cite.
No, Obamacare Wasn't a "Republican" Proposal
Column: Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate

1. the insurance was for "catastrophic" only and never intended to give feds control over all health care.
2. the policy passed in Massachusetts under Romney is on a state level not federal
while Democrats/liberals generally do not make as big a deal over the difference between state and federal,
this is a MAJOR difference for conservatives.
3. the votes on this previously failed. If you look at how Obama got it to pass, you will find last minute deals made giving special deals to certain states to buy their votes, which people did find out and complain about.
Both sides of opposition from left and right cite the deals Obama made with CORPORATE INSURANCE interests, including paying them trillions in advance to make the changes needed; and it is clear these corporate lobbyists help write the bill and added the condition of the mandates requiring insurance. When Obama was asked about changing the mandate, he even cited that he couldn't change this because of terms agreed on with insurance companies. So this is a hybrid deal with groups outside of govt jurisdiction that citizens have no power to check, yet we are REQUIRED to pay into it without it being accountable to the public.

NO Republican or Conservative would ever agree to that, and Ravi if you look at the votes, it reflects that exactly. The only reason it passed was the Democrats who support a President and agenda from their PARTY but this violates Constitutional process requiring an amendment before expanding the duties of federal govt outside what is given in the Constitution.

Common sense ALONE should tell us that EXPANDING FEDERAL involvement in health care goes against everything Republicans have been preaching AGAINST federal interference with
health care since Reagan's statement in the 60's warning where this path will lead.

The argument is that by taking on health care, this holds the citizens hostage to govt.
We no longer have our leverage to tell govt what to do or not do, if we depend on govt for our needs.

Thus, the conservatives argue that this growing dependence on govt has already corrupted the Democratic party, where they buy out the votes with benefits; and now they complain that the GOP has been sold out also, all going for supporting medicare and medicaid to appease the voters and losing their leverage to check govt.

Ravi, if you still don't agree, we can take this into the Bullring.
I have a huge project to help fellow Democrats fix the mess made in our national historic district.
If you want to help raise 10 million towards buying out a district for Black leadership to set up their own campus system for training govt leaders in administration and banking,
I am willing to make a bet with you:
* 5 million says yes, I am a Democrat
* 5 million says no, the health care reform bears such little resemblance to anything supported by Republicans or Conservatives that it violates Constitutional principles and beliefs held by Republicans and Conservatives
(and also goes against the single payer universal care reforms that liberal Democrats and Greens argue for).

Tell me if you still don't believe either one.
I can use the help raising money for progressive causes
since my fellow Democrats sadly put more money into political campaigns
than they do fixing their own problems and saving their own communities.

Uh, no, troll.

Show me one message I have posted, in a serious forum ie not the flame zone etc,
where I didn't address or respond with SERIOUS content.

Can you show me a trolling message Ravi?

This thread.

How is this trolling, Ravi? Everyone on here has responded with relevant msgs.
What is your definition of trolling then?

You are the only person who has focused on a personal msg to me not directly related.
I will still consider that relevant if we can resolve that, and benefit from it, so the
exchange is not in vain, not intended only to garner a reaction ie not for trolling itself.

If you are trying to troll me, I talk to trolls and try to engage anyway.
I will treat you as someone with ideas and opinions to share, if I can
draw that from you and encourage you to share what you are really
concerned about. I think that's important.

You are welcome to share on here, Ravi.
I don't mind objections or opposition if the point is to RESOLVE them.

Please feel free to participate as you wish, Ravi.
If you have grievances or issues, I'd like to resolve those so we all benefit
and become more effective as a team. Thank you!

 

[Care4all]

What about her saying to use her unsecure line?-
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-06322 Doc No. C05939759 Date: 04/29/2016 Obtained via FOIA by Judicial. Watch, Inc. From: Sent: To: Subject: H <hdr22@clintonemail com> Sunday, February 22, 2009 10·08 PM Cheryl Millsc___ _______ __J Re: Can we talk tonight? Pis try again1,_ __ __, From: "Cheryl Mills" Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:02:23 -0500 To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Can we talk tonight? Jusl dul -no answer ·-----Origmal Message---From · H <hdr22@cbntonemoiLcom> To: Cheryl Mills Sent' Sun Feb 22 22:01:52 2009 Suhjed: Re Can we talk lomghl'l I give up Call me on my home#. ------Onginal Message-----From: Cheryl Mills To: hdr22@clintonc;maiLcom Sent: Feb 22, 2009 9·39 PM Subject. RE· Can we talk tonight? the:y were supposed to com1ect us -I called some time ago to do a secure call with you-· call them and ask them to try the connection ·----Origmal Message----From: H (maiJto:[email protected]] Sent: Stmdoy, February 22, 2009 9:39 PM To: Cheryl Mills Subject: Re Can we talk tonight? Are you calling me? What#? I called ops and they gave me your "secure"· cell which I just tned but only got a long high pitched whining sound. -----Original Messlige-----From · Cheryl Mills To: hdr22@clintonemail corn Sent: Feb 22, 2009 8:58 PM Suhjecl· Re Can we talk lonighl? I can do now -----Origrnal Message--From H <[email protected]> To Cheryl Mills Sent: Swi. Feb 22 J 8·37:51 2009 Subject: Con we talk tonight? I just landed and\\ ·u be home short! We your conveiuence works

And Unclassified? Unclassified material and an unsecure server are 2 different things. The state dept server was secured. Thus why the Kenyan Ambassador was forced out. From the i spector generals report-

Very soon after the Ambassador’s arrival in May 2011, he broadcast his lack of confidence in the information management staff. Because the information management office could not change the Department’s policy for handling Sensitive But Unclassified material, he assumed charge of the mission’s information management operations. He ordered a commercial Internet connection installed in his embassy office bathroom so he could work there on a laptop not connected to the Department email system. He drafted and distributed a mission policy authorizing himself and other mission personnel to use commercial email for daily communication of official government business. During the inspection, the Ambassador continued to use commercial email for official government business. The Department email system provides automatic security, record-keeping, and backup functions as required. The Ambassador’s requirements for use of commercial email in the office and his flouting of direct instructions to adhere to Department policy have placed the information management staff in a conundrum: balancing the desire to be responsive to their mission leader and the need to adhere to Department regulations and government information security standards. The Ambassador compounded the problem on several occasions by publicly berating members of the staff, attacking them personally, loudly questioning their competence, and threatening career-ending disciplinary actions. These actions have sapped the resources and morale of a busy and understaffed information management staff as it supports the largest embassy in sub-Saharan Africa.

That states clearly the State Dept system was a secured system
https://web.archive.org/web/20140701090847/http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/196460.pdf

The State department used State.gov as their daily working email system....even though it was an UNCLASSIFIED system, they used it for classified information up to the Secret and above level, and when there was an FOIA REQUEST, their procedure was to go through the emails being released on an FOIA and classify them at the time of release.

THIS WAS THEIR procedure for ALL state departments under all the different SOS's PRIOR to Clinton as well.

The State department used State.gov as their daily working email system....even though it was an UNCLASSIFIED system, they used it for classified information up to the Secret and above level, and when there was an FOIA REQUEST, their procedure was to go through the emails being released on an FOIA and classify them at the time of release.

THIS WAS THEIR procedure for ALL state departments under all the different SOS's PRIOR to Clinton as well.

The talking points memo that was going to be faxed to her if they could get the secure fax fixed contained no secret or top secret information, after all it was a ''talking points'' memo, a memo filled with what she was suppose to TELL THE PRESS, plus secret and top secret info would never in a million years be sent via secure fax....secure fax is NOT secure enough for Top Secret and nothing top secret was in it. Secure email and secure fax are equal....

Her top aid was told if the secure fax ws not fixed soon, to strip the header, the title of the memo and to send it to her via email....her top aid KNEW what to do to send her this email and if for some very odd reason their was top secret info in this talking points memo, (which there was not) he would have removed the T/S part before sending it...her aide was seasoned in how to handle T/s....but nothing in the talking points memo was secret or top secret, regardless.

In addition to this, he never sent a shortened version via email to her, because the fax machine was fixed.

and SOS and other department heads are empowered to and can classify and declassify information if it originates in their department.

 

[depotoo]

Only after being coerced and having it wiped clean. Her intention was not to give them her server.

Dear sakinago and 320 Years of History
I am thanking your posts as "informative" since you are going through the trouble of trying to cite exact sources and clarify what has been verified or not.

I am still told that there WERE emails marked as TOP SECRET and higher.
I was told to "research the internet" to find this, so I will try, but may need your help.

Are you sure there are no sources online confirming some emails/information WERE marked as "TOP SECRET or higher' and "this is why the information is being withheld".

I see from your posts that some INFORMATION in the emails is classified and is still being treated as such.
So that already tells me this was not safe to use emails for that.

At the very least, this is reckless and poor judgment to use private hackable email for any state business dealing with national security/defense.

I can understand personal emails for events like state dinners, where people might share personal information about people they know personally when planning social events.

But for anything involving issues of defense, security, and purely govt business, I don't care who did what before, that should clearly be on govt emails and servers so it is
ACCOUNTABLE to the govt and public and Freedom of Information requests can be applied to it.

People at "regular businesses" make mistakes all the time of mixing business with personal emails.
That DOES cause problems with companies when something goes wrong, and it is both personal
and affecting professional relations and responsibility.

For Govt business and especially when Defense/Security issues are involved,
Clinton and others should apply a higher standard, and they should know this.
Even if "other people" mixed personal emails before, I can understand that for
govt related "social events" and non-proprietary issues.

But CANNOT understand this for things that are even RELATED to classified/security sensitive matters.
Even if the actual information "may not have been classified" if the MATTER has some classified and
some not, then it is dangerous to start any emails on that if it COULD lead to some classified info later on.

Such matters should CLEARLY NOT be personal or nonproprietary, and should have been
restricted to the respective emails/servers if there is even a RISK of something that COULD be
misused or RISK of some information leaking that COULD jeopardize a classified matter.

So I agree with the gist of what
sakinago is saying about accountability.

I stlll want to dig deeper to find whatever sources are supposedly reporting that
some emails/information WERE marked as TOP SECRET or higher.

If I can't find that, even with your help, I'll try to get the original person who reported this to track down those sources and post what is being cited for that.

Thanks so much, I know this is a lot of trouble to avoid repeating the "he said/she said type of hearsay" circulating on the internet, instead of digging up and finding the original source links that can verify what was established and what hasn't been.

I will try to THANK all the msgs that make some sincere attempt to dig into the real sources and avoid hearsay.

If I miss one, please PM me and let me know so I'll go back and credit the poster.

Everyone else: I appreciate your help and contributions here, each of you. Thank you, too!

I am still told that there WERE emails marked as TOP SECRET and higher.

there were NO emails marked top secret or higher on her server...you can google this and the State dept and Intelligence community agree, none were marked top secret or higher.

If Clinton had used the State.gov email system as all of her employees and as the right wingers claim she should have used,

that state.gov email system is an UNCLASSIFIED system just as her own server was an UNCLASSIFIED system. They were both secure systems, but still neither were Classified systems, but were UNCLASSIFIED systems.

NOTHING classified Top secret is suppose to be on the State.gov email system, nor her server....again, if she had a gvt email account, it would be no more safe than her own server for top secret stuff....in fact, the State.gov system is hacked frequently by both Russia and China, while the FBI said after reviewing her security logs for her system, there was no indication her system was ever hacked.

Top Secret classified information is on an entirely different system, that NEVER has access to an email system or the internet...top secret stuff is on a CLOSED in house system....which she does have an account with, along with her top aides...but nothing on the in house T/S system can be retrieved and emailed.

one of the lengthy email chains that is now being marked Top Secret and is now being put on the top secret system was an email chain among her aids where they communicated with each other giving ideas and thoughts on an unclassified gvt document....their comments contained classified information is what the IC IG stated. This email chain was on the State.gov email system which is the unclassified gvt system was passed back and forth on this system for 2 years, before 1 of her aids forwarded this email chain to Clinton.

Another 1 of the now classified T/S emails was an email from Syd Blumenthal, (a journalist and friend)...the information he sent her, which came from his own public sources and was information available from public sources for anyone to get their hands on is another of the email chains claimed to be top secret.

NONE, were on the govt's TOP SECRET system at the time she received them....

NONE of her aides took top secret documents off of the top secret govt system and forwarded them to her.

EVERYONE KNEW she was using her own server...any one who worked with her, anyone who ever emailed her, everyone she had ever emailed KNEW she was using a private server. IT WAS NEVER A SECRET, the State dept discussed it openly before it was even set up....there was never anything secretive about it....there are emails released on an FOIA that shows the State Dept was also well aware, besides the fact that her email address shows that she was using a private server.

In fairness to emilynghiem, she stated she's not an IT "guru." I get that, and it's appropriate that she's share that. It indicates that her remarks are driven by what she does understand and not the full picture of things. That said, I also think when one knows one isn't fully aware of the whole "scoop" re: "whatever," one has an obligation to refrain from "adding fuel to a fire" by speculating about what might be.

Red:
In the interest of being precise and clear, the woman had multiple email address, even multiple ".gov" ones, so the only folks who would or could without question know are the folks who sent/received emails to/from that ".com" email address. There are scads of folks, at State and not at State, who may never have had any interaction with her personal email address.

Truly, I think some folks perceive "private server" to have entirely the same context as does "private memories in one's head," or that of things being private as in "what one does in one's bedroom is private." That's not the context in this situation. It just means, this case, her server rather than DoS' server, and it means the whole world doesn't inherently have access to it. It's not a server snuck in on the DL and nobody knows she's using it or any thing even close to that.

These days, the only thing that's truly secret, truly private, are things that have zero connection/interaction with the world outside itself. And IT stuff of that sort doesn't send or receive email to anything.

Dear 320 Years of History
Do you agree with the assessment that:
1. Clinton knew that by using private email this can't be recorded or reported for Freedom of Information requested as emails that go through the govt system.
2. And that this WILL create the APPEARANCE of "skirting" that?
That by conducting ALL state business this way is going to give the wrong impression.

Again, to be perfectly honest, I have ethical issues with a govt leader
who either doesn't know 1 and 2 or doesn't care what impression and consequences this has.

I guess I am used to working with honest legal professionals who, the minute they sense
that something can even RISK APPEARING as a conflict and raise questions, they refuse
and refer it to someone else. Are my standards too high to expect govt officials to avoid risks like this?

Either the risk of a security breach "that will be blamed on them if they don't use the govt system
so the govt can take the blame not them"
or risk of appearing to skirt accountability and possibly be hiding private dealings by private server?

The FBI has said that all of her private/personal emails that she did not send to the govt archives to be archived, were NOT wiped off of her server and they have had them in their hands for review since last August, when her lawyer turned over her server to the FBI....if she was trying to hide something in her personal affairs, the govt has it all....

AND the gvt rules are that no gvt employee should ever send strictly personal emails to the govt archives, to only forward to them govt documents and govt involved emails...

 

[depotoo]

Talking points memo? Fax? This was to be a phone call.

How do you also explain her stating in the beginning she only wanted to carry one device, thus why she used private email, yet it was discovered she did use several.
Video: Clinton on Email Controversy: I 'Opted for Convenience'
Source: Clinton used multiple devices for personal email at State - CNNPolitics.com

What about her saying to use her unsecure line?-
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-06322 Doc No. C05939759 Date: 04/29/2016 Obtained via FOIA by Judicial. Watch, Inc. From: Sent: To: Subject: H <hdr22@clintonemail com> Sunday, February 22, 2009 10·08 PM Cheryl Millsc___ _______ __J Re: Can we talk tonight? Pis try again1,_ __ __, From: "Cheryl Mills" Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:02:23 -0500 To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Can we talk tonight? Jusl dul -no answer ·-----Origmal Message---From · H <hdr22@cbntonemoiLcom> To: Cheryl Mills Sent' Sun Feb 22 22:01:52 2009 Suhjed: Re Can we talk lomghl'l I give up Call me on my home#. ------Onginal Message-----From: Cheryl Mills To: hdr22@clintonc;maiLcom Sent: Feb 22, 2009 9·39 PM Subject. RE· Can we talk tonight? the:y were supposed to com1ect us -I called some time ago to do a secure call with you-· call them and ask them to try the connection ·----Origmal Message----From: H (maiJto:[email protected]] Sent: Stmdoy, February 22, 2009 9:39 PM To: Cheryl Mills Subject: Re Can we talk tonight? Are you calling me? What#? I called ops and they gave me your "secure"· cell which I just tned but only got a long high pitched whining sound. -----Original Messlige-----From · Cheryl Mills To: hdr22@clintonemail corn Sent: Feb 22, 2009 8:58 PM Suhjecl· Re Can we talk lonighl? I can do now -----Origrnal Message--From H <[email protected]> To Cheryl Mills Sent: Swi. Feb 22 J 8·37:51 2009 Subject: Con we talk tonight? I just landed and\\ ·u be home short! We your conveiuence works

And Unclassified? Unclassified material and an unsecure server are 2 different things. The state dept server was secured. Thus why the Kenyan Ambassador was forced out. From the i spector generals report-

Very soon after the Ambassador’s arrival in May 2011, he broadcast his lack of confidence in the information management staff. Because the information management office could not change the Department’s policy for handling Sensitive But Unclassified material, he assumed charge of the mission’s information management operations. He ordered a commercial Internet connection installed in his embassy office bathroom so he could work there on a laptop not connected to the Department email system. He drafted and distributed a mission policy authorizing himself and other mission personnel to use commercial email for daily communication of official government business. During the inspection, the Ambassador continued to use commercial email for official government business. The Department email system provides automatic security, record-keeping, and backup functions as required. The Ambassador’s requirements for use of commercial email in the office and his flouting of direct instructions to adhere to Department policy have placed the information management staff in a conundrum: balancing the desire to be responsive to their mission leader and the need to adhere to Department regulations and government information security standards. The Ambassador compounded the problem on several occasions by publicly berating members of the staff, attacking them personally, loudly questioning their competence, and threatening career-ending disciplinary actions. These actions have sapped the resources and morale of a busy and understaffed information management staff as it supports the largest embassy in sub-Saharan Africa.

That states clearly the State Dept system was a secured system
https://web.archive.org/web/20140701090847/http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/196460.pdf

The State department used State.gov as their daily working email system....even though it was an UNCLASSIFIED system, they used it for classified information up to the Secret and above level, and when there was an FOIA REQUEST, their procedure was to go through the emails being released on an FOIA and classify them at the time of release.

THIS WAS THEIR procedure for ALL state departments under all the different SOS's PRIOR to Clinton as well.

The State department used State.gov as their daily working email system....even though it was an UNCLASSIFIED system, they used it for classified information up to the Secret and above level, and when there was an FOIA REQUEST, their procedure was to go through the emails being released on an FOIA and classify them at the time of release.

THIS WAS THEIR procedure for ALL state departments under all the different SOS's PRIOR to Clinton as well.

The talking points memo that was going to be faxed to her if they could get the secure fax fixed contained no secret or top secret information, after all it was a ''talking points'' memo, a memo filled with what she was suppose to TELL THE PRESS, plus secret and top secret info would never in a million years be sent via secure fax....secure fax is NOT secure enough for Top Secret and nothing top secret was in it. Secure email and secure fax are equal....

Her top aid was told if the secure fax ws not fixed soon, to strip the header, the title of the memo and to send it to her via email....her top aid KNEW what to do to send her this email and if for some very odd reason their was top secret info in this talking points memo, (which there was not) he would have removed the T/S part before sending it...her aide was seasoned in how to handle T/s....but nothing in the talking points memo was secret or top secret, regardless.

In addition to this, he never sent a shortened version via email to her, because the fax machine was fixed.

and SOS and other department heads are empowered to and can classify and declassify information if it originates in their department.

 

[Care4all]

there were NO emails marked top secret or higher on her server...you can google this and the State dept and Intelligence community agree, none were marked top secret or higher.

If Clinton had used the State.gov email system as all of her employees and as the right wingers claim she should have used,

that state.gov email system is an UNCLASSIFIED system just as her own server was an UNCLASSIFIED system. They were both secure systems, but still neither were Classified systems, but were UNCLASSIFIED systems.

NOTHING classified Top secret is suppose to be on the State.gov email system, nor her server....again, if she had a gvt email account, it would be no more safe than her own server for top secret stuff....in fact, the State.gov system is hacked frequently by both Russia and China, while the FBI said after reviewing her security logs for her system, there was no indication her system was ever hacked.

Top Secret classified information is on an entirely different system, that NEVER has access to an email system or the internet...top secret stuff is on a CLOSED in house system....which she does have an account with, along with her top aides...but nothing on the in house T/S system can be retrieved and emailed.

one of the lengthy email chains that is now being marked Top Secret and is now being put on the top secret system was an email chain among her aids where they communicated with each other giving ideas and thoughts on an unclassified gvt document....their comments contained classified information is what the IC IG stated. This email chain was on the State.gov email system which is the unclassified gvt system was passed back and forth on this system for 2 years, before 1 of her aids forwarded this email chain to Clinton.

Another 1 of the now classified T/S emails was an email from Syd Blumenthal, (a journalist and friend)...the information he sent her, which came from his own public sources and was information available from public sources for anyone to get their hands on is another of the email chains claimed to be top secret.

NONE, were on the govt's TOP SECRET system at the time she received them....

NONE of her aides took top secret documents off of the top secret govt system and forwarded them to her.

EVERYONE KNEW she was using her own server...any one who worked with her, anyone who ever emailed her, everyone she had ever emailed KNEW she was using a private server. IT WAS NEVER A SECRET, the State dept discussed it openly before it was even set up....there was never anything secretive about it....there are emails released on an FOIA that shows the State Dept was also well aware, besides the fact that her email address shows that she was using a private server.

In fairness to emilynghiem, she stated she's not an IT "guru." I get that, and it's appropriate that she's share that. It indicates that her remarks are driven by what she does understand and not the full picture of things. That said, I also think when one knows one isn't fully aware of the whole "scoop" re: "whatever," one has an obligation to refrain from "adding fuel to a fire" by speculating about what might be.

Red:
In the interest of being precise and clear, the woman had multiple email address, even multiple ".gov" ones, so the only folks who would or could without question know are the folks who sent/received emails to/from that ".com" email address. There are scads of folks, at State and not at State, who may never have had any interaction with her personal email address.

Truly, I think some folks perceive "private server" to have entirely the same context as does "private memories in one's head," or that of things being private as in "what one does in one's bedroom is private." That's not the context in this situation. It just means, this case, her server rather than DoS' server, and it means the whole world doesn't inherently have access to it. It's not a server snuck in on the DL and nobody knows she's using it or any thing even close to that.

These days, the only thing that's truly secret, truly private, are things that have zero connection/interaction with the world outside itself. And IT stuff of that sort doesn't send or receive email to anything.

Dear 320 Years of History
Do you agree with the assessment that:
1. Clinton knew that by using private email this can't be recorded or reported for Freedom of Information requested as emails that go through the govt system.
2. And that this WILL create the APPEARANCE of "skirting" that?
That by conducting ALL state business this way is going to give the wrong impression.

Again, to be perfectly honest, I have ethical issues with a govt leader
who either doesn't know 1 and 2 or doesn't care what impression and consequences this has.

I guess I am used to working with honest legal professionals who, the minute they sense
that something can even RISK APPEARING as a conflict and raise questions, they refuse
and refer it to someone else. Are my standards too high to expect govt officials to avoid risks like this?

Either the risk of a security breach "that will be blamed on them if they don't use the govt system
so the govt can take the blame not them"
or risk of appearing to skirt accountability and possibly be hiding private dealings by private server?

The FBI has said that all of her private/personal emails that she did not send to the govt archives to be archived, were NOT wiped off of her server and they have had them in their hands for review since last August, when her lawyer turned over her server to the FBI....if she was trying to hide something in her personal affairs, the govt has it all....

AND the gvt rules are that no gvt employee should ever send strictly personal emails to the govt archives, to only forward to them govt documents and govt involved emails...

Thanks, Care4all can you cite the official source of where the FBI said this?

Politics
FBI reportedly recovers deleted emails from Clinton server
Published September 23, 2015
FoxNews.com

Federal investigators reportedly have recovered work-related and personal emails from Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state that the Democratic presidential front-runner claimed had been deleted from her personal server.

The recovery of the emails was first reported by Bloomberg News late Tuesday. The initial report, which cited a source familiar with the FBI investigation into Clinton's private email server, was corroborated by The New York Times, which cited two government officials.

The emails that were personal and that she did not forward to the govt archives and then deleted, were never wiped clean from her server, they were simply deleted after they had been gone through and determined they were not govt related emails.

 

[emilynghiem]

Talking points memo? Fax? This was to be a phone call.

How do you also explain her stating in the beginning she only wanted to carry one device, thus why she used private email, yet it was discovered she did use several.
Video: Clinton on Email Controversy: I 'Opted for Convenience'
Source: Clinton used multiple devices for personal email at State - CNNPolitics.com

What about her saying to use her unsecure line?-
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-06322 Doc No. C05939759 Date: 04/29/2016 Obtained via FOIA by Judicial. Watch, Inc. From: Sent: To: Subject: H <hdr22@clintonemail com> Sunday, February 22, 2009 10·08 PM Cheryl Millsc___ _______ __J Re: Can we talk tonight? Pis try again1,_ __ __, From: "Cheryl Mills" Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:02:23 -0500 To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Can we talk tonight? Jusl dul -no answer ·-----Origmal Message---From · H <hdr22@cbntonemoiLcom> To: Cheryl Mills Sent' Sun Feb 22 22:01:52 2009 Suhjed: Re Can we talk lomghl'l I give up Call me on my home#. ------Onginal Message-----From: Cheryl Mills To: hdr22@clintonc;maiLcom Sent: Feb 22, 2009 9·39 PM Subject. RE· Can we talk tonight? the:y were supposed to com1ect us -I called some time ago to do a secure call with you-· call them and ask them to try the connection ·----Origmal Message----From: H (maiJto:[email protected]] Sent: Stmdoy, February 22, 2009 9:39 PM To: Cheryl Mills Subject: Re Can we talk tonight? Are you calling me? What#? I called ops and they gave me your "secure"· cell which I just tned but only got a long high pitched whining sound. -----Original Messlige-----From · Cheryl Mills To: hdr22@clintonemail corn Sent: Feb 22, 2009 8:58 PM Suhjecl· Re Can we talk lonighl? I can do now -----Origrnal Message--From H <[email protected]> To Cheryl Mills Sent: Swi. Feb 22 J 8·37:51 2009 Subject: Con we talk tonight? I just landed and\\ ·u be home short! We your conveiuence works

And Unclassified? Unclassified material and an unsecure server are 2 different things. The state dept server was secured. Thus why the Kenyan Ambassador was forced out. From the i spector generals report-

Very soon after the Ambassador’s arrival in May 2011, he broadcast his lack of confidence in the information management staff. Because the information management office could not change the Department’s policy for handling Sensitive But Unclassified material, he assumed charge of the mission’s information management operations. He ordered a commercial Internet connection installed in his embassy office bathroom so he could work there on a laptop not connected to the Department email system. He drafted and distributed a mission policy authorizing himself and other mission personnel to use commercial email for daily communication of official government business. During the inspection, the Ambassador continued to use commercial email for official government business. The Department email system provides automatic security, record-keeping, and backup functions as required. The Ambassador’s requirements for use of commercial email in the office and his flouting of direct instructions to adhere to Department policy have placed the information management staff in a conundrum: balancing the desire to be responsive to their mission leader and the need to adhere to Department regulations and government information security standards. The Ambassador compounded the problem on several occasions by publicly berating members of the staff, attacking them personally, loudly questioning their competence, and threatening career-ending disciplinary actions. These actions have sapped the resources and morale of a busy and understaffed information management staff as it supports the largest embassy in sub-Saharan Africa.

That states clearly the State Dept system was a secured system
https://web.archive.org/web/20140701090847/http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/196460.pdf

The State department used State.gov as their daily working email system....even though it was an UNCLASSIFIED system, they used it for classified information up to the Secret and above level, and when there was an FOIA REQUEST, their procedure was to go through the emails being released on an FOIA and classify them at the time of release.

THIS WAS THEIR procedure for ALL state departments under all the different SOS's PRIOR to Clinton as well.

The State department used State.gov as their daily working email system....even though it was an UNCLASSIFIED system, they used it for classified information up to the Secret and above level, and when there was an FOIA REQUEST, their procedure was to go through the emails being released on an FOIA and classify them at the time of release.

THIS WAS THEIR procedure for ALL state departments under all the different SOS's PRIOR to Clinton as well.

The talking points memo that was going to be faxed to her if they could get the secure fax fixed contained no secret or top secret information, after all it was a ''talking points'' memo, a memo filled with what she was suppose to TELL THE PRESS, plus secret and top secret info would never in a million years be sent via secure fax....secure fax is NOT secure enough for Top Secret and nothing top secret was in it. Secure email and secure fax are equal....

Her top aid was told if the secure fax ws not fixed soon, to strip the header, the title of the memo and to send it to her via email....her top aid KNEW what to do to send her this email and if for some very odd reason their was top secret info in this talking points memo, (which there was not) he would have removed the T/S part before sending it...her aide was seasoned in how to handle T/s....but nothing in the talking points memo was secret or top secret, regardless.

In addition to this, he never sent a shortened version via email to her, because the fax machine was fixed.

and SOS and other department heads are empowered to and can classify and declassify information if it originates in their department.

Thank you Care4all and depotoo as others have pointed out,
we can't confirm any intent as that is conjecture on anyone's part.

What the videos show that depotoo posted is that Clinton
denied there was classified information, possibly using the
criteria of emails MARKED as classified/top secret at the time.
That is how she is getting around that. She states that there
are conflicting judgments all the time what is classified by which person in which dept.

However, it is stated that the investigators said there were emails
that were unquestionably classified, even some from NSA and security etc
where there is no question that these contained classified information.

So Clinton cannot deny that, and that she was skirting and changing her story.
We can't prove her intention, but we can confirm she was denying or changing the story.

Again, even if she had no ill or unlawful intent,
the fact that this is going to "give the appearance of negligence or conflict in duty"
should be enough of a red flag not to go there.

depotoo one source says that even if she deleted emails the information
remains on the server that the FBI has. You are saying once it's deleted, it's gone.

I asked Care4all to post the sources on that.

We can't get anywhere on intent, because that's anyone's guess and can't be
proven unless Clinton says she was negligent, or did anything deliberately.

Trying to avoid this and write it off as normal is troublesome to me.

I don't want anyone involved in high security levels of office to think
that this is normal.

I already have problems with people putting party before Constitutional duty.
If you have no respect or sense regarding national security, and especially
if you lie about it, then ???

Maybe I will get with other Constitutionalists and sign a decree that we will
not be subject to any decisions from govt officials seeking to violate Constitutional
laws, principles, process or beliefs, but will seek conflict resolution to redress
grievances so there is no obstruction of justice or democratic process due to conflicts.

I really need transparency in govt, and don't want to see any more
time, energy, or resources wasted on sidetracking issues. If people
can't resolve conflicts directly, then let's create a system that will.

 

[depotoo]

Relating to my last post


And her attorney stated it was wiped clean. Fortunately, sometimes an experienced IT specialist with special software can recover some emails on a cleaned hard drive. Can they recover all? Not always.
Clinton lawyer says her email server was wiped clean

EVERYONE KNEW she was using her own server...any one who worked with her, anyone who ever emailed her, everyone she had ever emailed KNEW she was using a private server. IT WAS NEVER A SECRET, the State dept discussed it openly before it was even set up....there was never anything secretive about it....there are emails released on an FOIA that shows the State Dept was also well aware, besides the fact that her email address shows that she was using a private server.

In fairness to emilynghiem, she stated she's not an IT "guru." I get that, and it's appropriate that she's share that. It indicates that her remarks are driven by what she does understand and not the full picture of things. That said, I also think when one knows one isn't fully aware of the whole "scoop" re: "whatever," one has an obligation to refrain from "adding fuel to a fire" by speculating about what might be.

Red:
In the interest of being precise and clear, the woman had multiple email address, even multiple ".gov" ones, so the only folks who would or could without question know are the folks who sent/received emails to/from that ".com" email address. There are scads of folks, at State and not at State, who may never have had any interaction with her personal email address.

Truly, I think some folks perceive "private server" to have entirely the same context as does "private memories in one's head," or that of things being private as in "what one does in one's bedroom is private." That's not the context in this situation. It just means, this case, her server rather than DoS' server, and it means the whole world doesn't inherently have access to it. It's not a server snuck in on the DL and nobody knows she's using it or any thing even close to that.

These days, the only thing that's truly secret, truly private, are things that have zero connection/interaction with the world outside itself. And IT stuff of that sort doesn't send or receive email to anything.

Dear 320 Years of History
Do you agree with the assessment that:
1. Clinton knew that by using private email this can't be recorded or reported for Freedom of Information requested as emails that go through the govt system.
2. And that this WILL create the APPEARANCE of "skirting" that?
That by conducting ALL state business this way is going to give the wrong impression.

Again, to be perfectly honest, I have ethical issues with a govt leader
who either doesn't know 1 and 2 or doesn't care what impression and consequences this has.

I guess I am used to working with honest legal professionals who, the minute they sense
that something can even RISK APPEARING as a conflict and raise questions, they refuse
and refer it to someone else. Are my standards too high to expect govt officials to avoid risks like this?

Either the risk of a security breach "that will be blamed on them if they don't use the govt system
so the govt can take the blame not them"
or risk of appearing to skirt accountability and possibly be hiding private dealings by private server?

The FBI has said that all of her private/personal emails that she did not send to the govt archives to be archived, were NOT wiped off of her server and they have had them in their hands for review since last August, when her lawyer turned over her server to the FBI....if she was trying to hide something in her personal affairs, the govt has it all....

AND the gvt rules are that no gvt employee should ever send strictly personal emails to the govt archives, to only forward to them govt documents and govt involved emails...

Thanks, Care4all can you cite the official source of where the FBI said this?

Politics
FBI reportedly recovers deleted emails from Clinton server
Published September 23, 2015
FoxNews.com

Federal investigators reportedly have recovered work-related and personal emails from Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state that the Democratic presidential front-runner claimed had been deleted from her personal server.

The recovery of the emails was first reported by Bloomberg News late Tuesday. The initial report, which cited a source familiar with the FBI investigation into Clinton's private email server, was corroborated by The New York Times, which cited two government officials.

The emails that were personal and that she did not forward to the govt archives and then deleted, were never wiped clean from her server, they were simply deleted after they had been gone through and determined they were not govt related emails.

 

[depotoo]

See my post 56 and simply deleted vs wiped clean are 2 different procedures. One is more thorough than the other-wiping clean.

Talking points memo? Fax? This was to be a phone call.

How do you also explain her stating in the beginning she only wanted to carry one device, thus why she used private email, yet it was discovered she did use several.
Video: Clinton on Email Controversy: I 'Opted for Convenience'
Source: Clinton used multiple devices for personal email at State - CNNPolitics.com

What about her saying to use her unsecure line?-
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-06322 Doc No. C05939759 Date: 04/29/2016 Obtained via FOIA by Judicial. Watch, Inc. From: Sent: To: Subject: H <hdr22@clintonemail com> Sunday, February 22, 2009 10·08 PM Cheryl Millsc___ _______ __J Re: Can we talk tonight? Pis try again1,_ __ __, From: "Cheryl Mills" Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:02:23 -0500 To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Can we talk tonight? Jusl dul -no answer ·-----Origmal Message---From · H <hdr22@cbntonemoiLcom> To: Cheryl Mills Sent' Sun Feb 22 22:01:52 2009 Suhjed: Re Can we talk lomghl'l I give up Call me on my home#. ------Onginal Message-----From: Cheryl Mills To: hdr22@clintonc;maiLcom Sent: Feb 22, 2009 9·39 PM Subject. RE· Can we talk tonight? the:y were supposed to com1ect us -I called some time ago to do a secure call with you-· call them and ask them to try the connection ·----Origmal Message----From: H (maiJto:[email protected]] Sent: Stmdoy, February 22, 2009 9:39 PM To: Cheryl Mills Subject: Re Can we talk tonight? Are you calling me? What#? I called ops and they gave me your "secure"· cell which I just tned but only got a long high pitched whining sound. -----Original Messlige-----From · Cheryl Mills To: hdr22@clintonemail corn Sent: Feb 22, 2009 8:58 PM Suhjecl· Re Can we talk lonighl? I can do now -----Origrnal Message--From H <[email protected]> To Cheryl Mills Sent: Swi. Feb 22 J 8·37:51 2009 Subject: Con we talk tonight? I just landed and\\ ·u be home short! We your conveiuence works

And Unclassified? Unclassified material and an unsecure server are 2 different things. The state dept server was secured. Thus why the Kenyan Ambassador was forced out. From the i spector generals report-

Very soon after the Ambassador’s arrival in May 2011, he broadcast his lack of confidence in the information management staff. Because the information management office could not change the Department’s policy for handling Sensitive But Unclassified material, he assumed charge of the mission’s information management operations. He ordered a commercial Internet connection installed in his embassy office bathroom so he could work there on a laptop not connected to the Department email system. He drafted and distributed a mission policy authorizing himself and other mission personnel to use commercial email for daily communication of official government business. During the inspection, the Ambassador continued to use commercial email for official government business. The Department email system provides automatic security, record-keeping, and backup functions as required. The Ambassador’s requirements for use of commercial email in the office and his flouting of direct instructions to adhere to Department policy have placed the information management staff in a conundrum: balancing the desire to be responsive to their mission leader and the need to adhere to Department regulations and government information security standards. The Ambassador compounded the problem on several occasions by publicly berating members of the staff, attacking them personally, loudly questioning their competence, and threatening career-ending disciplinary actions. These actions have sapped the resources and morale of a busy and understaffed information management staff as it supports the largest embassy in sub-Saharan Africa.

That states clearly the State Dept system was a secured system
https://web.archive.org/web/20140701090847/http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/196460.pdf

The State department used State.gov as their daily working email system....even though it was an UNCLASSIFIED system, they used it for classified information up to the Secret and above level, and when there was an FOIA REQUEST, their procedure was to go through the emails being released on an FOIA and classify them at the time of release.

THIS WAS THEIR procedure for ALL state departments under all the different SOS's PRIOR to Clinton as well.

The State department used State.gov as their daily working email system....even though it was an UNCLASSIFIED system, they used it for classified information up to the Secret and above level, and when there was an FOIA REQUEST, their procedure was to go through the emails being released on an FOIA and classify them at the time of release.

THIS WAS THEIR procedure for ALL state departments under all the different SOS's PRIOR to Clinton as well.

The talking points memo that was going to be faxed to her if they could get the secure fax fixed contained no secret or top secret information, after all it was a ''talking points'' memo, a memo filled with what she was suppose to TELL THE PRESS, plus secret and top secret info would never in a million years be sent via secure fax....secure fax is NOT secure enough for Top Secret and nothing top secret was in it. Secure email and secure fax are equal....

Her top aid was told if the secure fax ws not fixed soon, to strip the header, the title of the memo and to send it to her via email....her top aid KNEW what to do to send her this email and if for some very odd reason their was top secret info in this talking points memo, (which there was not) he would have removed the T/S part before sending it...her aide was seasoned in how to handle T/s....but nothing in the talking points memo was secret or top secret, regardless.

In addition to this, he never sent a shortened version via email to her, because the fax machine was fixed.

and SOS and other department heads are empowered to and can classify and declassify information if it originates in their department.

Thank you Care4all and depotoo as others have pointed out,
we can't confirm any intent as that is conjecture on anyone's part.

What the videos show that depotoo posted is that Clinton
denied there was classified information, possibly using the
criteria of emails MARKED as classified/top secret at the time.
That is how she is getting around that. She states that there
are conflicting judgments all the time what is classified by which person in which dept.

However, it is stated that the investigators said there were emails
that were unquestionably classified, even some from NSA and security etc
where there is no question that these contained classified information.

So Clinton cannot deny that, and that she was skirting and changing her story.
We can't prove her intention, but we can confirm she was denying or changing the story.

Again, even if she had no ill or unlawful intent,
the fact that this is going to "give the appearance of negligence or conflict in duty"
should be enough of a red flag not to go there.

depotoo one source says that even if she deleted emails the information
remains on the server that the FBI has. You are saying once it's deleted, it's gone.

I asked Care4all to post the sources on that.

We can't get anywhere on intent, because that's anyone's guess and can't be
proven unless Clinton says she was negligent, or did anything deliberately.

Trying to avoid this and write it off as normal is troublesome to me.

I don't want anyone involved in high security levels of office to think
that this is normal.

I already have problems with people putting party before Constitutional duty.
If you have no respect or sense regarding national security, and especially
if you lie about it, then ???

Maybe I will get with other Constitutionalists and sign a decree that we will
not be subject to any decisions from govt officials seeking to violate Constitutional
laws, principles, process or beliefs, but will seek conflict resolution to redress
grievances so there is no obstruction of justice or democratic process due to conflicts.

I really need transparency in govt, and don't want to see any more
time, energy, or resources wasted on sidetracking issues. If people
can't resolve conflicts directly, then let's create a system that will.

 

[Care4all]

Relating to my last post


And her attorney stated it was wiped clean. Fortunately, sometimes an experienced IT specialist with special software can recover some emails on a cleaned hard drive. Can they recover all? Not always.
Clinton lawyer says her email server was wiped clean

In fairness to emilynghiem, she stated she's not an IT "guru." I get that, and it's appropriate that she's share that. It indicates that her remarks are driven by what she does understand and not the full picture of things. That said, I also think when one knows one isn't fully aware of the whole "scoop" re: "whatever," one has an obligation to refrain from "adding fuel to a fire" by speculating about what might be.

Red:
In the interest of being precise and clear, the woman had multiple email address, even multiple ".gov" ones, so the only folks who would or could without question know are the folks who sent/received emails to/from that ".com" email address. There are scads of folks, at State and not at State, who may never have had any interaction with her personal email address.

Truly, I think some folks perceive "private server" to have entirely the same context as does "private memories in one's head," or that of things being private as in "what one does in one's bedroom is private." That's not the context in this situation. It just means, this case, her server rather than DoS' server, and it means the whole world doesn't inherently have access to it. It's not a server snuck in on the DL and nobody knows she's using it or any thing even close to that.

These days, the only thing that's truly secret, truly private, are things that have zero connection/interaction with the world outside itself. And IT stuff of that sort doesn't send or receive email to anything.

Dear 320 Years of History
Do you agree with the assessment that:
1. Clinton knew that by using private email this can't be recorded or reported for Freedom of Information requested as emails that go through the govt system.
2. And that this WILL create the APPEARANCE of "skirting" that?
That by conducting ALL state business this way is going to give the wrong impression.

Again, to be perfectly honest, I have ethical issues with a govt leader
who either doesn't know 1 and 2 or doesn't care what impression and consequences this has.

I guess I am used to working with honest legal professionals who, the minute they sense
that something can even RISK APPEARING as a conflict and raise questions, they refuse
and refer it to someone else. Are my standards too high to expect govt officials to avoid risks like this?

Either the risk of a security breach "that will be blamed on them if they don't use the govt system
so the govt can take the blame not them"
or risk of appearing to skirt accountability and possibly be hiding private dealings by private server?

The FBI has said that all of her private/personal emails that she did not send to the govt archives to be archived, were NOT wiped off of her server and they have had them in their hands for review since last August, when her lawyer turned over her server to the FBI....if she was trying to hide something in her personal affairs, the govt has it all....

AND the gvt rules are that no gvt employee should ever send strictly personal emails to the govt archives, to only forward to them govt documents and govt involved emails...

Thanks, Care4all can you cite the official source of where the FBI said this?

Politics
FBI reportedly recovers deleted emails from Clinton server
Published September 23, 2015
FoxNews.com

Federal investigators reportedly have recovered work-related and personal emails from Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state that the Democratic presidential front-runner claimed had been deleted from her personal server.

The recovery of the emails was first reported by Bloomberg News late Tuesday. The initial report, which cited a source familiar with the FBI investigation into Clinton's private email server, was corroborated by The New York Times, which cited two government officials.

The emails that were personal and that she did not forward to the govt archives and then deleted, were never wiped clean from her server, they were simply deleted after they had been gone through and determined they were not govt related emails.

clinton's lawyer was wrong if he used the actual term wiped in a technical sense....they simply were deleted from her email box. The tech firm who had her server said nothing was wiped on clinton's server.....all of it was there if they simply deleted them AND it was reported that the FBI easily found them with no difficulties when they got her server....

NO ONE took steps to erase them from the server.

 

[320 Years of History]

another video with more inconsistencies noted

Really? You're going to present in this discussion a report from before the FBI began its investigation? Have you been paying attention to and reading the substantive posts in the discussion?

 

[depotoo]

I believe I have been a part of those posts. Now, is the video missing some recent discoveries? Sure, but it shows some that have occurred.

another video with more inconsistencies noted

Really? You're going to present in this discussion a report from before the FBI began its investigation? Have you been paying attention to and reading the substantive posts in the discussion?

 

[320 Years of History]

I believe I have been a part of those posts. Now, is the video missing some recent discoveries? Sure, but it shows some that have occurred.

another video with more inconsistencies noted

Really? You're going to present in this discussion a report from before the FBI began its investigation? Have you been paying attention to and reading the substantive posts in the discussion?

Oh, Lord....

 

[emilynghiem]

I believe I have been a part of those posts. Now, is the video missing some recent discoveries? Sure, but it shows some that have occurred.

another video with more inconsistencies noted

Really? You're going to present in this discussion a report from before the FBI began its investigation? Have you been paying attention to and reading the substantive posts in the discussion?

Not to worry 320 Years of History
The video depotoo posted clearly shows Hillary actually making the FALSE statement HERSELF
declaring that "no classified information" was included.

The other sources clearly stated that even if it wasn't marked as such,
the content made it CLEARLY CLASSIFIED, anyone would have known that
without question, and it did not belong on private emails/servers.

So it helps to show that Hillary said herself there was "no classified" materials.
This was incorrect, and either deliberate or negligent and shows either incompetence if she didn't know the difference, or arrogance above public duty if she didn't care to be accurate and careful.

I did note that she can clarify it "wasn't marked classified at the time"
and skirt the fact that it still was determined clear enough it didn't need that label,
the content alone coming from the NSA etc. made it clearly classified materials
that should not have been transmitted through private means period.

For intent, I already reiterated to depotoo how that cannot be verified,
so I want to stick to points that can be.

Thanks again!