Who Really Cares About Hillary’s Email?

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Contrary to click-bait headlines this week, the State Department inspector general’s report proves that Hillary Clinton is by a long shot the most qualified and trustworthy candidate running for president. But don’t take my word for it, take five minutes and read the report yourself. The section about Clinton “breaking the rules” is less than six pages long.

The actual rules, however, would take weeks to read. They are mostly contained in the “Foreign Affairs Manual,” and just skimming them is dizzying. They make the report’s conclusion that “longstanding, systemic weaknesses related to electronic records and communications have existed within the Office of the Secretary that go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State” come as no surprise

No surprise either that with its budget declining and national security mission growing for decades, “records management” hasn’t been a high priority for the State Department.

What may be surprising is that had Clinton used a government server and email address, we would know nothing more about anything today; in fact, we’d probably know less since Clinton’s records retention system was far more sophisticated, well-maintained, secure and organized than the government’s. What definitely came as a shocker in the report was the government’s so-called “system” for retaining email: 1. Print every one and stick it in a box in random order. 2. Put said box on a shelf somewhere. 3. Start a new box. Seriously. Read the report. There are thousands of boxes of emails in no order, with no way of knowing whether they are comprehensive.

Well, I guess we know they’re not comprehensive. The report clarifies that Colin Powell, for instance, hasn’t printed any of his emails from his private server.

“Printing and filing remained the only method by which emails could properly be preserved within the office of the secretary in full compliance with existing FAM Guidance,” says the report, and “80 percent of agencies had an elevated risk for the improper management of electronic records reflecting serious challenges handling vast amounts of email, integrating records management functionality into electronic systems, and adapting to the changing technological and regulatory environments.”

How’s that for a confidence booster?

The specific “rule” Clinton allegedly broke states that the “general policy” of the State Department is for employees to use government email service on a government-issued device, but it then goes on to provide the conditions under which exceptions are made. The report acknowledges that Clinton had been openly using her private email server since she was a senator, through her 2008 presidential campaign and then as secretary of state. In fact, during her tenure at the State Department, 55,000 emails were sent by Clinton using her clintonemail.com email address, all of which have been printed and made available, more than any other previous secretaries.

The report also clearly states: “Laws and regulations did not prohibit employees from using their personal email accounts for the conduct of official Department business.” And nowhere in the report is there suggestion that Clinton’s use of a private email address and server was “illegal.”

Instead, the thrust of the criticism of Clinton is that the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the Bureau of Information Resource Management were not asked permission by Clinton to use her private server. Had she asked, the new person in charge says, permission would have been denied.

How the new person in charge of security knows what the old person in charge of security when Clinton was secretary would have done is not explained, but bureaucrats under a microscope are like cockroaches when the lights come on. They scatter.

“These officials all stated that they were not asked to approve or otherwise review the use of Secretary Clinton’s server and that they had no knowledge of approval or review by other department staff. These officials also stated that they were unaware of the scope or extent of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email account, though many of them sent emails to the secretary on this account.”

So let’s get this straight: The bureaucrats “in charge” of security knew Clinton was using a private email server since 2001 — and they sent her email regularly to it between 2009 and 2013 — but they wouldn’t have given her permission to do that?

They sent her emails to her personal address, but they didn’t know she had a personal address?

This was no covert operation, for heaven’s sake. It’s not like Clinton was secretly selling arms to Iran and funding the Contras. The Clintons paid out-of-pocket for a few techies to work in their basement keeping this server humming and free from cyber breaches. Staffers from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security inspected the email system, looked at the logs and communicated with these people on a regular basis. The bureau even refused to help fix it when Hurricane Sandy disrupted power “because it was a private server,” according to the report.

Clinton reasonably believed her private server was allowed because the bureaucrats in charge of security allowed it. This present-day conviction for violating rule 12 FAM 544.2 after the fact means nothing of any consequence. Nobody was hurt. No security was breached. Who cares?

Read the rest here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cynthia-dill/who-really-cares-about-hillary-emails_b_10193776.html

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Pretty true. Only reason this is a bigger deal than Sanders' violations and Trump's bankruptcies is because it's Clinton. She's not even breaking any laws, has basically done better than previous secretaries, and arguably had a more secure server than the government's, yet people want her to be punished for no reason other than spite as if she's a national enemy.

Feel free to comment as you please.

[FATCAT 60,909]

Well, considering she put someone with no security clearance, in charge of (and had unlimited access to) classified data, I'd consider it a very important issue. Given the FBI's interest in the case, and it being a continuing news reel, I think a lot of people care about Hillary's email blunder.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

5 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

Well, considering she put someone with no security clearance, in charge of (and had unlimited access to) classified data,

It was not classified at the time. Even still, it's a hard sell to prove that the person went through the files and maliciously distributed them. It makes him the criminal too. Given that he has immunity, not much is going to come of it.

5 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

Given the FBI's interest in the case

Standard procedure.

5 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

it being a continuing news reel

Well yes. The question in the title was rhetorical.

Clearly three groups love this:

1) Republicans love to see their enemy number one in the press

2) Media loves Clinton stories because they're a sure sell

3) Some Bernie Sanders supporters hoping for a Hail Mary

The fallacy here is that the interest equates guilt, when it doesn't.

[FATCAT 60,909]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

It was not classified at the time. Even still, it's a hard sell to prove that the person went through the files and maliciously distributed them. Him having access does not make Hillary a criminal.

It doesn't make her a criminal, it makes her negligent. Given the fact that the president makes decisions for the whole country, having someone that doesn't make good choices is bad. Not all of the classified information was retroactively classified.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, FATCAT said:

It doesn't make her a criminal, it makes her negligent. Given the fact that the president makes decisions for the whole country, having someone that doesn't make good choices is bad. Not all of the classified information was retroactively classified.

You can't use one example to justify a generalization FATCAT. 

I'm sure you have more, but the point is that all the candidates have done bad choices. None of them are robots  

[FATCAT 60,909]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

You can't use one example to justify a generalization FATCAT. 

All the candidates have done bad choices.

I'm not using one example, I'm basing it on her entire political career. This one example however weighs heavily, especially since she made and re-affirmed her decision 32,000 times.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

6 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

I'm not using one example, I'm basing it on her entire political career. This one example however weighs heavily, especially since she made and re-affirmed her decision 32,000 times.

She's had a very illustrious political career compared to the other candidates. Clearly she'll have more chances to make bad choices, as well as good ones that you seem to ignore . She's also associated with choices that aren't even her own, like her husband's and Obama's for better or worse. 

I wouldn't even call this a bad choice. Just one done out of impatience with old systems. To be honest the government needs to update their systems because no one has to deal with that level of bureaucracy in this day and age.

[Boyboi12 2,125]

I personally don't like scandal, and she been having a lot of problems lately 

[FATCAT 60,909]

3 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

She's had a very illustrious political career compared to the other candidates. Clearly she'll have more chances to make bad choices, as well as good ones that you seem to ignore  

I wouldn't even call this a bad choice. Just one done out of impatience with old systems. To be honest the government needs to update their systems because no one has to deal with that level of bureaucracy in this day and age.

You don't get to disregard rules because you're impatient. The government does need to update their systems, but that's not an excuse to make a home brew server. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, FATCAT said:

You don't get to disregard rules because you're impatient. The government does need to update their systems, but that's not an excuse to make a home brew server. 

Well  

Hillary didn't even know she was breaking the rules at the time. She just did what she thought was best.

Any argument otherwise is circumstantial at best.

[FATCAT 60,909]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

Well  

Hillary didn't even know she was breaking the rules at the time. She just did what she thought was best.

Any argument otherwise is circumstantial at best.

But it's also about how she handled the aftermath.. Her and her lawyers tried to delete almost all of the emails, and cover it up.. At one point, she knew she had broken a rule, and did little to fix it.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

3 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

But it's also about how she handled the aftermath.. Her and her lawyers tried to delete almost all of the emails, and cover it up.. At one point, she knew she had broken a rule, and did little to fix it.

No they didn't. Her lawyers withheld some because they were personal. A guy in charge deleted some e-mails. (under whose orders or why none of us can say. It could have been under Hillary's orders. We don't know). 55,000 were turned over. In fact she's the only secretary so far to have provided her records at all, even when all of them are supposed to have them as part of the Freedom of Information Act of 1966.

Well if she did find out, I'm certain she had a reason to. We don't know context or circumstance to berate her for it.

That's the entire point of the article. It's not trying to claim that Hillary did no wrong. It's the wrong that's being overblown out of proportion. This is nothing serious, contrary to what you think or may believe. In fact even the report doesn't say much about what Hillary did wrongly. Only 6 pages worth. That's less than 10% of the report. it said she broke some rules. Big whoop. Who hasn't? 

[Luiz 4,253]

she never did help that Nigerian prince tho  what a selfish bitch. cant be my president tbh

[Guest]

So if when she gets indicted is it still not gonna be a big deal lol?