On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for 30,322 emails & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server while she was Secretary of State.
The 50,547 pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton. The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs
by the US State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. The final PDFs were made available on February 29, 2016.
She sent and received classified information
While some of the emails Clinton sent have been declared classified retroactively, Comey said 110 emails in 52 email chains were classified at the time they were sent.
Of those:
• Eight email chains contained "top secret" information.
• 36 chains contained "secret" information.
• Eight email chains contained "confidential" information, the lowest classification level.
"None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system," Comey said.
Some emails have been lost
Clinton and her lawyers handed over to the State Department 30,000 emails that they said were the business-related emails from her private system. The personal emails were deleted. But Comey said that in this process, it is "likely that there are other work-related emails that they did not produce ... that are now gone because they deleted all emails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices." The FBI could not recover these.
Her email might have been hacked
Comey said there was no direct evidence Clinton's email was hacked, but other people she corresponded with were hacked, and her use of a private email system was well-known. She also used her email while traveling "in the territory of sophisticated adversaries." Thus, he said, "it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account."
Many servers, not one
The story of Clinton's emails has been about her use of a private server to run her own email system, but Comey said, "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 email." Old servers got decommissioned as new equipment was brought online, and information on old devices was scrapped.
So why no charges?
Comey said the key here is that investigators found no intent to break the law. Cases that have been filed in similar cases have been based on "clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information" or "indications of disloyalty to the United States." In the Clinton case, those elements were not found.
That's not what I said.
What I said was running an email server is inherently less secure than running a home PC. Understand?
EDIT :
Seriously I thought this was self-evident.
If you want to educate yourself, look here as a starter : http://www.geekwire.com/2015/why-you-shouldnt-try-to-host-your-own-email/
There are hundreds more places you could go. If you are in any way high profile, you shouldn't be running your own servers without a dedicated security administrator. The FBI Director alluded to this by noting that services like gmail are likely more secure than what Hillary was doing.
The specific statute doesn't require intent. That's the entire fucking point of the way it was written, stupid people need to be punished so there is a lesser likelihood of them being stupid.http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...hillary-clinton-email-investigation/86709530/
Wow.
I have a question. Comey says she had no intent to break the law. But did she in fact break the law?
As usual, you see nothing beyond Hillary's rectum. State maintains a two-tiered system that requires the user to select the appropriate classification for each message and allows any classified, sensitive, or compartmentalized information to be sent ONLY to secure computers.Ah, now it's much clearer why you're so confused; you must not know that the State Department email system isn't supposed to store those same classified emails either, only a system built specifically for classified emails is supposed to contain them in the first place. Now I see why you've been confused this whole time, you thought had she used a State Department email system that it would been legally substantially better than handling those classified emails on her private server. How quaint.
Amusingly, even the classification stamps on the "small number" of emails sent by Mrs. Clinton which had security classification markings is not evidence that Mrs. Clinton intentionally sent or received classified information.Were it but so!
At a certain level, stupidity and ignorance constitute an iron-clad defense.The specific statute doesn't require intent. That's the entire fucking point of the way it was written, stupid people need to be punished so there is a lesser likelihood of them being stupid.
Except that's not true, and a dumbass statement to make period. Sorry.
Yeah, your Geekwire article says if you're not highly skilled don't do it...but this exact same thing applies to setting up a secure home PC; if the same person has to set up a Windows Home box or a Windows Server box, the Windows Server box is obviously more secure and it's not debatable. The fact that you have to be competent is the biggest no brainer in the history of mankind.
Fact is, and you don't know this since you're clearly not all that well informed, Windows Servers (as just one example) turn off all sorts of exploitable services that Windows Home does not; even IE (if you're dumb enough to use it) is in the highest security zone level, various ports are closed off by default in the firewall differently, etc. Not the case with Windows Home OSes.
FBI is not going to get involved in election year politics. What if they charged Hillary, but then she got acquitted? How would that look? Like they threw the election to Trump and smeared an innocent person.
I'm kinda digging all the thrashing around in futility & denial from the Hillary haters.
No indictment, guys & gals. Right from one of the straightest shooting ball breaking top cops & federal prosecutors in recent history.
Now figure out how you came to believe so fervently in such an absurd proposition in the first place.
That doesn't really prove that Hillary was hacked though. This could result from the State Department hack.
Which puts you way above the guy who set up Hillary's system in every respect except one: political loyalty.I know quite a bit about how that works, thanks. Been involved in setting up servers and doing network programming for ~20+ years now.
If you run an email server, you are advertising your presence and the type of server you are running. Same with anything else out there.
This makes you a constant, easily identifiable target.
I don't mind if you want to be willfully ignorant, but if you change your mind click one of the links below :
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=exchange+server+hack
https://www.wired.com/2016/06/xdedic-server-trading-forum-kaspersky/
How so? If they prosecute Hillary, they would also have to prosecute the Bushies, who moved official business conversations to the RNC servers. Hillary is by far the most egregious, but it's an elite problem, not a partisan problem.I suppose that's the situation the FBI is in. Prosecute now and risk your scenario, or prosecute after the election and either (1) force Hillary to endure the specter of indictment through her entire campaign or (2) risk prosecuting a newly-elected president, or both.
Either way it gives the FBI the appearance of looking partisan.
A Republican FBI director has cleared Hillary.
As usual, you see nothing beyond Hillary's rectum. State maintains a two-tiered system that requires the user to select the appropriate classification for each message and allows any classified, sensitive, or compartmentalized information to be sent ONLY to secure computers.
I know quite a bit about how that works, thanks. Been involved in setting up servers and doing network programming for ~20+ years now.
If you run an email server, you are advertising your presence and the type of server you are running. Same with anything else out there.
This makes you a constant, easily identifiable target.
I don't mind if you want to be willfully ignorant, but if you change your mind click one of the links below :
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=exchange+server+hack
https://www.wired.com/2016/06/xdedic-server-trading-forum-kaspersky/
So fucked!! The world is going to end and I'm going to die throwing the biggest temper tantrum!
/S
Considering that the state department computers were hacked and hers were not, I'd say any incompetence in handling classified material you are whining about are negated by her competence in keeping that material safe!
That's the true beauty of democracy: We get the leaders we deserve.
As far as eating crow, I have always maintained that she would never be indicted, even under a President Trump or President Cruz.
Or maybe it's been a learning experience in a lot of ways. I'm sure Hillary & crew will be a lot more observant of protocols in the White House than they were at State, a good thing.
At the same time, maybe some of the Birther/Benghazi believers will realize that they've been chumps for puffed up scandal, over and over again.
Notice the date, 6 months ago-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/f...ould-face-criminal-indictment/article/2579620
I'm too lazy to dig out the pertinent thread but it was a doozy.
You said her server wasn't hacked, the FBI said that it was widely known she had one and that state actors probably wouldn't leave evidence while she engaged in risky infosec practices.
Given the circumstances it is illogical to state that her server wasn't hacked, because if it was us we'd have that box owned in no time flat.
FBI is not going to get involved in election year politics. What if they charged Hillary, but then she got acquitted? How would that look? Like they threw the election to Trump and smeared an innocent person. Instead they just reported what they found and let the voters decide in November.
Is there any way we can get this moron banned for having the IQ of a gnat? Rhetorical question...but damn this guy is fn stupid!Originally Posted by ivwshane
Considering that the state department computers were hacked and hers were not, I'd say any incompetence in handling classified material you are whining about are negated by her competence in keeping that material safe!
Can be other consequences like revoking clearances or such, but no criminal charges..
Is there any way we can get this moron banned for having the IQ of a gnat? Rhetorical question...but damn this guy is fn stupid!
Surely revoking clearance/making ineligible for clearance would be far worse than indictment. Would this also be something the FBI would need to recommend?
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.