We're speaking of federal govt for one thing, not the State of Florida. (I don't know and couldn't care less what Jeb did, that's up to the people of FL.)
For another your link doesn't have anything about Jeb setting up a private server.
WTF are you talking about? Do you even know?
Fern
As governor, Bush used his account, jeb@jeb.org, to conduct official, political and personal business, including plans to woo new businesses to the state, judicial appointments and military matters, the e-mail records show. His e-mail server was housed at the governors office in Tallahassee during his two terms; he took it with him when he left office in 2007.
The Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community is a retarded rightie?
is there anything that hillary cant do that you lefty partisan hacks wont sweep under the rug?
I just Love all you anti Hilliary peeps foaming at the mouth.......nothing is going to happen!!
But that is OK!! Keep on foaming.....
If this was a regular employee who did this would they get treated the same or would they be in big trouble?
Again, email is NOT an acceptable medium for classified materials.
The Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community is a retarded rightie?
is there anything that hillary cant do that you lefty partisan hacks wont sweep under the rug?
On Monday, the ongoing political and legal problems swirling around Hillary Clinton's use of a private email system during her time as secretary of state got simpler and more complicated. A spokeswoman with the office of the inspector general for the intelligence community told Mother Jones that it had finished reviewing Clinton's emails and was not taking further action. But the matter was still being investigated
So, uhh, how does that apply to being forwarded an article from the NYT referencing classified information? Should every govt employee who reads the article report it to the security pinheads?
What we're really seeing is two different kinds of information. One is information from the wild that's deemed to be classified at a later date & the other is classified information that's escaped into the wild. Hillary's email has not been shown to have leaked classified information at all. Any information that came in came from the wild, from unsecured sources. When leaked, it was leaked from somewhere else & insisting on it still being classified requiring special handling is an absurdity considering that it has already escaped.
And how does one know what is classified and what isn't?
Would an article in a newspaper be considered classified?
Really? "Internet email" is a confusing tech term to you? Seems like you're the one diverting here.Yeah, I read it.
I'm not a tech/IT guy. I think getting all pissy about tech terms is a diversion.
To me "email" means electronic mail and not necessarily internet. I've used a non-internet type system back in the day before what is now known as email existed.
And you still haven't addressed the question I raised: What means did she have available to properly handle classified info? All I've seen was that she claimed she had aides print out the classified info on hard copy and give to her. I.e., she didn't have the secured State dept "thingy" her aides and others had. (I'm using the technically superior term "thingy" for your benefit).
Fern
It's long, but I found it really informative. IIRC, Foreign Policy is pay-walled, so you might need to read it via a Google link. This may help: https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#hl=en&q="don't+blame+hillary+for+the+classified+email+scandal"Don't Blame Hillary for the Classified Email Scandal
The real problem is that the State Departments ancient communications system hasnt yet caught up with the mobile revolution.
One of the latest twists in the drawn-out saga over Hillary Clintons State Department emails centers on whether her aides erred in forwarding sensitive information on unclassified email systems. The argument is that while these emails were not marked classified, they should have been so designated and that top aides should have known as much and kept the information confined to high-security channels. But a politically driven focus on individual aides and specific emails masks a larger set of issues of real consequence for U.S. national security and foreign policy: the gaping absence of technologies that enable government officials to securely and reliably transmit information with the speed and flexibility that the digital age demands. Having served as a deputy assistant secretary of state for international organizations during Barack Obamas first term and, prior to that, as a senior advisor at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in New York toward the end of Bill Clintons administration, I can vouch that the systems used for classified information have not kept up with the times.
A key point that seems lost in this latest discussion is the challenge posed to the State Department, and presumably other federal agencies, in maintaining information security in a world where on-the-go encrypted mobile communications have become indispensable to conducting everyday business. ...
The IG just has his own axe to grind or he wouldn't be playing along w/ congressional repubs, answering their letters w/ ones of his own he knows will be used to stir the shit.
Otherwise, he'd just be doing his job & letting the FBI sort out the rest.
Sure, but that's outside the scope of this story, and makes it difficult to discuss without throwing in a lot of confusing qualifiers and disclaimers. Within the context of Clinton's server and the unclassified realm, email is not an acceptable medium for classified material. This would be true regardless of whether Clinton was using her own server, a Gmail account, or an email account on the public State Department email system.This is incorrect, secure email can be sent over secure networks. The whole idea is to make it almost impossible to accidentally leak secure data out of secure facilities or on to unsecure networks.
Doesn't the IG serve at the pleasure of the President?
Generally, when you are briefed onto a program you are told (in general) what is classified and the program must maintain a list. It is your responsibility to know what is classified on a program you are cleared onto.
Now for a position like SoS, where she is probably cleared onto hundreds of programs, this becomes much more complicated.
Depending on the context, an e-mail about a newspaper article could be. Really, classified in the wild is still classified. Though I doubt anyone gets punished for reading a newspaper article with classified info in it. If the newspaper article is confirmed in the e-mail, that is a different story.
Dunno. And, uhh, so what? Sometimes the boss just has to grin & bear it, politics being what they are. Obama wouldn't touch the guy with a pole.
I have personally worked with classified information for a number of years. Have you?
Can you point to the law or regulation that says her job is to know all of what is and is not classified? More importantly, can you describe how on earth that would even work? How could any person have such voluminous knowledge?
Every standard I have ever seen is that it is a violation of you knowingly transmit classified information, knowingly transmit information you should have known was classified, or display gross indifference. Nowhere have I ever seen a standard where someone is supposed to know if all information is classified or not. Again, I have no idea how that sort of standard could rationally exist anyway.
I would say so, and especially in this case based on the fact that Obama appointed him to the position.Doesn't the IG serve at the pleasure of the President?
Because any competent boss has some degree of control over his subordinates? Hell we still base our opinions on judges appointed by Bush or Clinton simply because who appointed them and they aren't actually subordinate to anyone.
Because fucking with the guy is stupid. We already know how this will play out. It's a corollary to the empty conspiracies of Benghazi. There's no point in adding fuel to the fire. It'll burn out soon enough.
Why? Because it's bullshit & because it takes time to generate effort an order of magnitude greater to counter it that Brandolini's law demands.
Repubs have been the masters of distraction in that way from Whitewater forward.
Birtherism? Bullshit.
Fast & Furious? Bullshit.
Benghazi? Their finest mindfuck bullshit.
IRS? Bullshit.
Hillary's email? You guessed it- more bullshit.
McCullough was nominated by President President Barack Obama in August 2011 to be the first inspector general for the 16 intelligence agencies and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. He was unanimously confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee that October. The full Senate (Democrat Majority) agreed by unanimous consent in November.
Yes, especially in conjunction with a second State address. State address for official business, gmail for private matters. But if I had to choose only one, certainly I'd rather it be gmail than a private server. For one thing, gmail's experts are selected on the basis of expertise, not political reliability. For another, while the user can delete emails on gmail, they remain extant on backups and are therefore discoverable, thereby offering the public some assurance that nothing improper occurred.Wait, what, you think it's better for secretaries of state to use Gmail?
lol No doubt.holy shit dude i think you are broken. your "nazi like" fanatic worship of the democratic party is disturbing.
holy shit dude i think you are broken. your "nazi like" fanatic worship of the democratic party is disturbing.
Republicans make shit up hoping for a scandal. Can't find a thing.
Describing that objective reality: "nazi-like fanatic worship of the democratic party"...you know, because we're describing observable reality where all of the scandals were absolutely nothingburgers, and everyone but the fox faithful know it.
Keep on keepin' on with that hilarious analysis!
No.*oh look another lock-step fanatic.
were classified documents found on a private PC?
Yes or No.
No.*
* Since you insist on trying to cram a complex issue into a simple-minded, single word answer, the closest answer to your question is "No" based on a common interpretation of the question. If you care about actually understanding the issue, you'll need to do a little more reading (and not just nutter propaganda).
holy shit dude i think you are broken. your "nazi like" fanatic worship of the democratic party is disturbing.
You obviously don't realize that what you just said is completely insane in a Milo Minderbinder sort of way.