Hillary Emails

[TheXFactor]

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly lied about this.

Clinton has said she did not send or receive any information that was marked as classified and has accused the State Department and other government agencies of "over-classifying" her emails after a judge ordered them released to the public.

According to the FBI, 110 of the approximately 30,000 emails Mrs. Clinton provided for the investigation contained information considered classified when they were sent.

Former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey says that a criminal charge is justified.

“…from her direction that classification rules be disregarded, to the presence on her personal email server of information at the highest level of classification, to her repeated falsehoods of a sort that juries are told every day may be treated as evidence of guilty knowledge—it is nearly impossible to draw any conclusion other than that she knew enough to support a conviction at the least for mishandling classified information.”

It looks like President Obama was working behind the scenes to prevent criminal charges from being filed.


Hillary and Bill Clinton deserve to be indicted on Federal Racketeering Charges.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States Federal Law passed in 1970 that was designed to provide a tool for law enforcement agencies to fight organized crime. RICO allows prosecution and punishment for alleged racketeering activity that has been executed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise.

Activity considered to be racketeering may include bribery, counterfeiting, money laundering, embezzlement, illegal gambling, kidnapping, murder, drug trafficking, slavery, and a host of other nefarious business practices.

James Comey and The FBI will present a recommendation to Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the Department of Justice, that includes a cogent argument that the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors to individuals, corporations and even governments both foreign and domestic.

[NEVER BEEN]

What exactly would the charge be that would facilitate a 5 year sentence and a $10,000,000 USD fine?

Deliberately disseminating classified data (espionage (Snowden, that trannie in jail, every Chinese contracted employee fucking ever (literally))) is very, very serious and I believe the legal team that prosecutes those cases has something like a 97% conviction rate.

Non-deliberately disseminating classified data (data loss (Every fucking .gov idiot who loses an unencrypted laptop in the back of a cab or leaves it to be smash/grabbed from the front seat))... if they are real fuckups they occasionally get fired, but even then rarely because the onus of responsibility for the failed controls falls on the IT managers who allowed it to happen.

The charge would be from the following. Intent is not required while negligence is specified. 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information


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

ITT: Angry white nerds who dont understand what classification is, how it works, or what it's for.

She is a lawyer that should have a very good understanding of what her responsibilities and liabilities were when she signed the following form.

Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement(Standard Form 312)

2. I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information, including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom I contemplate disclosing this information have been approved for access to it, and that I understand these procedures.

3. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

4. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of States Code; *the provisions of section 783(b}, title 50, United States Code; and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

7. I understand that all classified information to which I have access or may obtain access by signing this Agreement is now and will remain the property of, or under the control of the United States Government unless and until otherwise determined by an authorized official or final ruling of a court of law. I agree that I shall return all classified materials which have, or may come into my possession or for which I am responsible because of such access: (a) upon demand by an authorized representative of the United States Government; (b) upon the conclusion of my employment or other relationship with the Department or Agency that last granted me a security clearance or that provided me access to classified information; or (c) upon the conclusion of my employment or other relationship that requires access to classified information. If I do not return such materials upon request, I understand that this may be a violation of sections 793 and/or 1924, title 18, United States Code, a United States criminal law

You can compare the above to the following quotes from the press conference today. Some may also wish to compare the findings to some of the claims made by her defending her actions. 1: Her emails were not classified. 2: She returned all work-related emails. 3: Classified emails were not “marked” classified 4: Her lawyers read through all of her emails. 5:She took the security of her email system seriously.

FBI Director quotes:

“I have so far used the singular term, "e-mail server," in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways.”....

“From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were "up-classified" to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.” .... “With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level.” ....

“I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails” ...


“It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as "personal" by Secretary Clinton's lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton's personal system in 2014.” ...

“It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort” ....

“ there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later "up-classified" e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked "classified" in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.” ....

“With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.”

[Bootsy Collins]

The charge would be from the following. Intent is not required while negligence is specified. 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information


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

ITT: Angry white nerds who dont understand what classification is, how it works, or what it's for.

She is a lawyer that should have a very good understanding of what her responsibilities and liabilities were when she signed the following form.

Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement(Standard Form 312)

2. I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information, including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom I contemplate disclosing this information have been approved for access to it, and that I understand these procedures.

3. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

4. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of States Code; *the provisions of section 783(b}, title 50, United States Code; and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

7. I understand that all classified information to which I have access or may obtain access by signing this Agreement is now and will remain the property of, or under the control of the United States Government unless and until otherwise determined by an authorized official or final ruling of a court of law. I agree that I shall return all classified materials which have, or may come into my possession or for which I am responsible because of such access: (a) upon demand by an authorized representative of the United States Government; (b) upon the conclusion of my employment or other relationship with the Department or Agency that last granted me a security clearance or that provided me access to classified information; or (c) upon the conclusion of my employment or other relationship that requires access to classified information. If I do not return such materials upon request, I understand that this may be a violation of sections 793 and/or 1924, title 18, United States Code, a United States criminal law

You can compare the above to the following quotes from the press conference today. Some may also wish to compare the findings to some of the claims made by her defending her actions. 1: Her emails were not classified. 2: She returned all work-related emails. 3: Classified emails were not “marked” classified 4: Her lawyers read through all of her emails. 5:She took the security of her email system seriously.

FBI Director quotes:

“I have so far used the singular term, "e-mail server," in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways.”....

“From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were "up-classified" to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.” .... “With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level.” ....

“I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails” ...


“It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as "personal" by Secretary Clinton's lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton's personal system in 2014.” ...

“It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort” ....

“ there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later "up-classified" e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked "classified" in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.” ....

“With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.”

[sonatine]

Show me a list of people actually prosecuted (not even convicted, just prosecuted) for negligence, nerd.


OPM got raided and literally everything from PII data to their fucking risk assessments ended up in Beijing, how many people got prosecuted for negligence there exactly?

[Dan Druff]

I once worked for a defense contractor. Wasn't there long enough to bother with a security clearance, but I was exposed to the entire culture of handling classified material, and attended a lot of the meetings about it.

The rules in handling classified material are very strict. You need to acknowledge those strict rules before receiving your clearance. You cannot claim "negligence" if caught mishandling classified material. It is still a crime, much like many other crimes one can commit without intending to do so.

But let's face it, Hillary cannot use the negligence argument. She was Secretary of State. We're not talking about some 24-year-old scrub working for a defense contractor, who could use inexperience as an excuse.

Hillary did it her way because she felt she could get away with it. Both Clintons have operated under their own rules for decades. They believe they are above the rest of us, and can bend or break laws without consequence. Part of this is due to the fact that they HAVE gotten away with everything with no consequence.

Let's face it. This was an obnoxious, brazen, and intentional abuse of laws governing classified material, and committed by someone who should have (and did) clearly know better.

Anyone besides Hillary Clinton would have gone to prison for this.

It's also important to note that Hillary likely did this for shady reasons -- not just because she found it to be more convenient. Given that she deleted and wiped messages she deemed "irrelevant" to her work (lol), it shows that she was using the private server because she had a lot to hide, and wanted full control over that data.

How anyone can trust Hillary at this point is beyond me.

[Dan Druff]

Also, while President Obama does not have direct control over the FBI, it is well known that the White House can take many steps to control them.

If you want the FBI or DOJ to investigate anyone in the party of power, you're fucked.

This is the same reason Harry Reid was never federally investigated for taking a $1 million bribe from Full Tilt. The state of Utah (where it occurred) was literally begging the FBI to allocate some resources for the investigation, and provided plenty of justification to do so, but the FBI told them to eat shit.

Obama isn't a huge fan of Hillary, but she was associated with his Administration and he doesn't want a black mark on it. Also, he despises Trump and wants to do everything he can to prevent Trump from winning.

[LarryLaffer]

[LarryLaffer]

[NEVER BEEN]

Show me a list of people actually prosecuted (not even convicted, just prosecuted) for negligence, nerd.


OPM got raided and literally everything from PII data to their fucking risk assessments ended up in Beijing, how many people got prosecuted for negligence there exactly?

You asked a question: I answered it. Now you want to equivocate and move beyond the original question I addressed. I won’t get into a pointless back and forth based upon political expediency and justification. The information given by Comey completely contradicts Clintons claims to the public. Irresponsible is the kindest term that can be accurately used in the description of the situation. These last questions you ask, if answered, coupled with this email situation, illustrates one of the reasons why Trump is a leading candidate. People are tired of irresponsible non accountable gov. No, I am not endorsing Trump.

[sonatine]

Show me a list of people actually prosecuted (not even convicted, just prosecuted) for negligence, nerd.


OPM got raided and literally everything from PII data to their fucking risk assessments ended up in Beijing, how many people got prosecuted for negligence there exactly?

You asked a question: I answered it. Now you want to equivocate and move beyond the original question I addressed. I won’t get into a pointless back and forth based upon political expediency and justification. The information given by Comey completely contradicts Clintons claims to the public. Irresponsible is the kindest term that can be accurately used in the description of the situation. These last questions you ask, if answered, coupled with this email situation, illustrates one of the reasons why Trump is a leading candidate. People are tired of irresponsible non accountable gov. No, I am not endorsing Trump.

[ftpjesus]

Show me a list of people actually prosecuted (not even convicted, just prosecuted) for negligence, nerd.


OPM got raided and literally everything from PII data to their fucking risk assessments ended up in Beijing, how many people got prosecuted for negligence there exactly?

Let me chime in for a minute on this one as I spent 2 yrs as a Govt contractor for DHHS back in the late 90s.. To tell you how stupid some upper level cabinet people can be Donna Shalala who was at the time the actual Sec for DHHS managed to get a worm on her computer leaving a backdoor to the world wide open. (and good ole Uncle Sam didn't even have the enough fucking sense to have things firewalled with non-routeable IPs no these fucking idiots had Class A block addresses assigned to desktops). I got pulled out of a meeting to go fix her computer by my boss who was white as a ghost when he handed me the report from central security (somehow the worm had been found when they ran a weekly malware check didn't bother to shut the stupid thing down just notify us). I had to go up to her office and politely ask her to please vacate her desk and explain to her somehow she had left her computer with a ton of sensitive information wide open to the world because she chose to open an email she shouldn't have and additionally her PW security sucked..

As for who got prosecuted reference your statement Sonatine. Lets harken back to our dear old former CIA director Gen Petreaus who was hung out to dry by Obama because in fact he had dirt on the Commander in Chief over some goings on when Petreaus was CIC of Centcom and had been moved to the civilian side to shut him up until they could figure out a way to fuck him over legally and put him out to pasture as a threat. Petreaus was in fact prosecuted for the same thing Hillary was basically outta for by the FBI today. Mishandling secrets.. Wasn't intentional on Petreaus fault anymore then Hillarys but difference is Obama wanted Petreaus shut up and down while Hillary is his heir apparent on the Democratic side. (Anybody with a single functioning neuron knows she was told nicely to go away in 2008 and would have her chance in 2016 and she would get a nice insider Cabinet job from Obama in the meantime.

[ftpjesus]

I once worked for a defense contractor. Wasn't there long enough to bother with a security clearance, but I was exposed to the entire culture of handling classified material, and attended a lot of the meetings about it.

The rules in handling classified material are very strict. You need to acknowledge those strict rules before receiving your clearance. You cannot claim "negligence" if caught mishandling classified material. It is still a crime, much like many other crimes one can commit without intending to do so.

But let's face it, Hillary cannot use the negligence argument. She was Secretary of State. We're not talking about some 24-year-old scrub working for a defense contractor, who could use inexperience as an excuse.

Hillary did it her way because she felt she could get away with it. Both Clintons have operated under their own rules for decades. They believe they are above the rest of us, and can bend or break laws without consequence. Part of this is due to the fact that they HAVE gotten away with everything with no consequence.

Let's face it. This was an obnoxious, brazen, and intentional abuse of laws governing classified material, and committed by someone who should have (and did) clearly know better.

Anyone besides Hillary Clinton would have gone to prison for this.

It's also important to note that Hillary likely did this for shady reasons -- not just because she found it to be more convenient. Given that she deleted and wiped messages she deemed "irrelevant" to her work (lol), it shows that she was using the private server because she had a lot to hide, and wanted full control over that data.

How anyone can trust Hillary at this point is beyond me.

Just to add to the shadiness apparently her personal assistant Huma was deposed and reported Hillary had a habit of putting her personal schedule in the burn bag (for those who don't know the govt doesn't shred top secret papers they incinerate them which of course explains the excess hot air in DC)

[MumblesBadly]

I once worked for a defense contractor. Wasn't there long enough to bother with a security clearance, but I was exposed to the entire culture of handling classified material, and attended a lot of the meetings about it.

The rules in handling classified material are very strict. You need to acknowledge those strict rules before receiving your clearance. You cannot claim "negligence" if caught mishandling classified material. It is still a crime, much like many other crimes one can commit without intending to do so.

But let's face it, Hillary cannot use the negligence argument. She was Secretary of State. We're not talking about some 24-year-old scrub working for a defense contractor, who could use inexperience as an excuse.

Hillary did it her way because she felt she could get away with it. Both Clintons have operated under their own rules for decades. They believe they are above the rest of us, and can bend or break laws without consequence. Part of this is due to the fact that they HAVE gotten away with everything with no consequence.

Let's face it. This was an obnoxious, brazen, and intentional abuse of laws governing classified material, and committed by someone who should have (and did) clearly know better.

Anyone besides Hillary Clinton would have gone to prison for this.

It's also important to note that Hillary likely did this for shady reasons -- not just because she found it to be more convenient. Given that she deleted and wiped messages she deemed "irrelevant" to her work (lol), it shows that she was using the private server because she had a lot to hide, and wanted full control over that data.

How anyone can trust Hillary at this point is beyond me.

Druff, they trust her to work towards delivering on the significant political objectives most who will be voting for her want (e.g. protecting women's access to abortion, reducing the likelihood of discrimination against women and minorities in the workplace, the continuation of Obamacare, the protection of Israel's interests (goom-bye, Assad regime), the overall management of the economy absent Trump-like horrible decisions.)

Meaning, they don't give a shit about those emails! Get that through your head, GOPers! Because if you don't, you won't begin to understand how to actually defeat her 4 years hence!

[DirtyB]

Show me a list of people actually prosecuted (not even convicted, just prosecuted) for negligence, nerd.

OPM got raided and literally everything from PII data to their fucking risk assessments ended up in Beijing, how many people got prosecuted for negligence there exactly?

I just read a good article saying the same thing. It talked about how if you prosecute people for negligence, then they will do everything in their power to hide mistakes they've made- creating security holes. If you handle negligence with "tell us everything you did and we'll fix it", you end up with more secure systems. Without spelling it out, it sounded like the FBI report was saying that a normal employee would probably be stripped of their clearance and fired, but she's not a government employee, so they can't do that.

Another interesting point was that the State Department email system was basically non-functional. It would be an embarrassment to any private company with more than 10 employees. Apparently one of Colin Powell's proudest achievements was getting the State Department to start using email...period...in fucking 2004. Since they literally had no system, he used a private email server for all of his communications.

[sonatine]

Show me a list of people actually prosecuted (not even convicted, just prosecuted) for negligence, nerd.

OPM got raided and literally everything from PII data to their fucking risk assessments ended up in Beijing, how many people got prosecuted for negligence there exactly?

I just read a good article saying the same thing. It talked about how if you prosecute people for negligence, then they will do everything in their power to hide mistakes they've made- creating security holes. If you handle negligence with "tell us everything you did and we'll fix it", you end up with more secure systems. Without spelling it out, it sounded like the FBI report was saying that a normal employee would probably be stripped of their clearance and fired, but she's not a government employee, so they can't do that.

Another interesting point was that the State Department email system was basically non-functional. It would be an embarrassment to any private company with more than 10 employees. Apparently one of Colin Powell's proudest achievements was getting the State Department to start using email...period...in fucking 2004. Since they literally had no system, he used a private email server for all of his communications.

There are other concerns as well of course, such as how unbelievably hard it is to retain employees with public trust or higher in gov these days. The private sector pays 30%+ more and they generally dont piss test, polygraph, interview 7 years of neighbors/girlfriends/landlords, or crawl up your ass every time you want to leave the country.

If the government fired every employee guilty of being a fuckup, this nation would grind to a halt in hours.

[sonatine]

Also to be clear, clearance isnt a measure of someones competence or even how trust-worthy they are, its a measure of their vulnerability to extortion basically. I've seen crackheads get TS clearance because they copped to their habits and have been clean for 6 months and are attending meetings, and I've seen life long military people fail to get clearance because they didnt divulge that their wives mother is a foreign national who posts anti-US memes on her facebook wall.

[DirtyB]

Also to be clear, clearance isnt a measure of someones competence or even how trust-worthy they are, its a measure of their vulnerability to extortion basically. I've seen crackheads get TS clearance because they copped to their habits and have been clean for 6 months and are attending meetings, and I've seen life long military people fail to get clearance because they didnt divulge that their wives mother is a foreign national who posts anti-US memes on her facebook wall.

Do you know how much the government cares about financial problems? In private sector background checks, they seem to care a lot about financial shit. The idea is that if you're badly in debt, you would be tempted to do dumb shit to solve your financial problems. There's an undeniable logic there, but it's also really unfair to people who went into debt for all kinds of non-stupid reasons, like their kid getting cancer.

[sonatine]

Also to be clear, clearance isnt a measure of someones competence or even how trust-worthy they are, its a measure of their vulnerability to extortion basically. I've seen crackheads get TS clearance because they copped to their habits and have been clean for 6 months and are attending meetings, and I've seen life long military people fail to get clearance because they didnt divulge that their wives mother is a foreign national who posts anti-US memes on her facebook wall.

Do you know how much the government cares about financial problems? In private sector background checks, they seem to care a lot about financial shit. The idea is that if you're badly in debt, you would be tempted to do dumb shit to solve your financial problems. There's an undeniable logic there, but it's also really unfair to people who went into debt for all kinds of non-stupid reasons, like your kid getting cancer.

Yeah there arent many factors that weigh more heavily into clearance than debt, for exactly the reasons you described. People will make some real grim decisions to keep a roof over their families heads or pay for their kids medicine.

Usually it boils down to a combination of things, of course. I got passed over for a promotion/raise, I'm having trouble with my boss, I owe the bookie/IRS/bank a few grand, my wife's fucking her tennis instructor, etc etc. Any one of those things by itself, most adults can fade. But even if youre not the type to slither into an embassy looking to pedal secrets, you might be someone who has a drink or two too many because UGH life man amirite and ends up in a hotel room with an incongruously foxy woman, who gets super serious with you but seems to constantly want to know more about your job/boss/coworkers and can she use your laptop for a sec ok awesome ty gg.

In fact, there is a standard lecture anyone with high clearance and a .gov email address gets stating plainly that if you find yourself hooking up with someone even vaguely out of your league, you should report it immediately to the FBI because honeytraps are real as fuck, sooooo many people get honeytrapped, and there comes a point where youre giving away the crown jewels just to stay out of jail over the totally minor shit you did.

[Dan Druff]

Also to be clear, clearance isnt a measure of someones competence or even how trust-worthy they are, its a measure of their vulnerability to extortion basically. I've seen crackheads get TS clearance because they copped to their habits and have been clean for 6 months and are attending meetings, and I've seen life long military people fail to get clearance because they didnt divulge that their wives mother is a foreign national who posts anti-US memes on her facebook wall.

Do you know how much the government cares about financial problems? In private sector background checks, they seem to care a lot about financial shit. The idea is that if you're badly in debt, you would be tempted to do dumb shit to solve your financial problems. There's an undeniable logic there, but it's also really unfair to people who went into debt for all kinds of non-stupid reasons, like their kid getting cancer.

Unfair but understandable. Your kid having cancer would be a great reason to sell state secrets in exchange for the money to get your kid the best treatment.

Strangely, when I worked at a defense contractor in the '90s, there was a guy there whose credit was so bad that he couldn't get a credit card, yet he got a security clearance. It was only "Secret", but I was still surprised.

He also wasn't a productive employee at all, so it's not like they pushed it through because they really needed him.

[Dan Druff]

Show me a list of people actually prosecuted (not even convicted, just prosecuted) for negligence, nerd.

OPM got raided and literally everything from PII data to their fucking risk assessments ended up in Beijing, how many people got prosecuted for negligence there exactly?

I just read a good article saying the same thing. It talked about how if you prosecute people for negligence, then they will do everything in their power to hide mistakes they've made- creating security holes. If you handle negligence with "tell us everything you did and we'll fix it", you end up with more secure systems. Without spelling it out, it sounded like the FBI report was saying that a normal employee would probably be stripped of their clearance and fired, but she's not a government employee, so they can't do that.

Another interesting point was that the State Department email system was basically non-functional. It would be an embarrassment to any private company with more than 10 employees. Apparently one of Colin Powell's proudest achievements was getting the State Department to start using email...period...in fucking 2004. Since they literally had no system, he used a private email server for all of his communications.

This is all interesting stuff to discuss, but it doesn't belong in relation to Hillary Clinton.

This was not negligence. Hillary is not a stupid woman, and everything she does is for a purpose.

As I mentioned earlier, she used the private server so she could control access to all of the data. Anything shady she did, anything shady she didn't want others to see, she could remove.

By Hillary's own admission, 30,000 e-mails deemed "not work related" were not only deleted, but scrubbed through an advanced deletion method making them unrecoverable. Why do you think that was done?

Now we have FBI Director Comey telling us that they were able to recover some of those 30,000, and found that at least 110 of them (probably MUCH more, as they only recovered a fraction) contained classified material. Yet the Clinton people deleted them, and anything else we might find "interesting".

You guys don't think this is all a bit shady?

Hillary knew the laws and chose to break them, so she could operate her various shady dealings under no one's watchful eye but her own.

I wish there was a way to see all 30,000 e-mails she deleted.

If you are voting for Hillary because you think Trump would be worse, I understand. Just know that you're voting for an extremely slippery, dishonest, and self-serving individual, even by politician standards. Don't delude yourself into believing you're just voting for a continuation of Obama's Administration.