New York Times: Hillary Clinton illegally used private email for all State Dept. business

Did you think it would matter more if you posted it a second time? If other people broke the law they should be indicted as well.....I'm not sure what you are hoping to prove here.

 

Apparently the FBI is looking into it. Let them all be held accountable to the law, just like everyone else.

All of them. Even Hillary Clinton, who of course is the only one who might not be.

 

This reminds me of Fast and Furious. Republicans pounced all over the "scandal", and then found out that the program began during the Bush administration and then immediately backed off.

 

Another faux scandal obliterated. On to the next one Republicans.

 

ha! On a fraction of the scale. Educate yourself

 

just lol

libs now think it's fine to share secretary of state's personal communications with our enemies

just lol

 

The Republicans may have blown it up in the media, but the FBI is not gonna just let this slip by. If they found that she intentionally or unintentionally risked state secrets by doing this, she'll be charged with espionage. This is a matter of homeland security and there's a reason it hasn't been put to rest yet. Oh, and just because other people did it too doesn't make it "ok".

 

Well it's okay when Republicans do it but it's not a scandal until Republicans pretend it started with a Democrat. Just like the "Obama phone" was actually Bush policy. We know how the game works. Never let the truth get in the way of a fake scandal.

Regarding "espionage", the fact that apparently three of the last several Secretaries of State have received classified information in this manner makes it pretty evident that there's an issue in the way that information is classified and how systems flag it as classified. Maybe we should put less effort into political sideshows like this and more effort into fixing the problem and preventing the Russians and Chinese from hacking any computer they want.

 

You just stated prior knowledge is required which is exactly what I said in my statement.

Where we differ is that your take is prior knowledge is almost automatic in all this business of Cyberwarfare. I agree it is quite pervasive but toward focused areas of high interest (and high return for them) like military, government, industries of interest, and not as focused on billions of individuals email accounts.

 

I think this makes the opposite case. Unless the FBI comes up with something so overwhelmingly compelling I don't think they will charge a past SoS with anything. especially when the evidence is pretty clear that former SoS and other government officials have pretty much done the same thing. Just as I really don't think any court would proceed with this, not only for the same reason, but because no one would want to take the extraordinary step to disenfranchise so many voters in what has always been viewed as a highly partisan effort.

So while the GOP drumbeats continue to pound (much as they did with Whitewater, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, etc) I think this is just more noise.

 

As I said earlier, Congress should pass laws that make it clearly illegal to use private devices and equipment for official government business. Now that we know things can easily get re-classified after the fact, they should do this now. But of course, they won't bother with actually solving problems.

 

You're trying to invoke a "chicken or the egg" paradox, which at the end of the day, its irrelevant ... we have both.

Yes, you can have a private email server sitting out there and nobody will be the wiser. With that logic, why bother connecting it to the internet? O'wait, that is what SIPRnet is.
It when you start using that private email server becomes the issue. There are near endless compromises and vulnerabilities, so the definition of "prior knowledge" is a bit irrelevant. At the end of the day, like the chicken and the egg, a secret and/or hidden email address/server is common knowledge throughout the cyber world. This is why Al Queda switch to human couriers instead of electronic communication, not because they didnt have cell phones and internet, but they understood everyone in the world was listening. Apparently our State Department struggles with this concept.
If Hillary wants to share pictures of her grandbaby Charlotte using her hilldog22@clintonemail.com email, that is fine. Lets not use it for state business. You never know when the wrong information might get out. Pretty common sense.

 

Information doesnt get re-classified easily, per say. Let me remind you that we have no idea what this information is. Just because the media quotes Hillary or the state dept or some other individual doesn't make it so.
There is non-classified information, which is basically anything that is not classified or de-classified, then there is classified (with three forms, each broken down further), or classified info that has been de-classified.

It then gets vague because sometimes subjects doesn't have to be "officially" classified for it to be classified. This can be commonly found in real time developing events. She can't just say, "whelp, this new development doesnt have a red classifed stamp on it, send it on through hilldog22 email account". That is just as negligent.
Then you have gray areas where mentioning several non/de-classified subjects together would make it classified.

 

The politically motivated arguments in this thread are a great reminder to me of how easy it is lose grasp of common logic.

The thought that someone in such a critical role as Secretary of State could use a private server for their official communications is so ludicrous to me that I would find it funny were it not so serious. I don't really care if there was classified information or not (although it does make it more critical) - we have enemies that trawl through the garbage of warships looking for scraps of intelligence, so I'm sure they would find the day to day communications of one of the highest officers in the land somewhat interesting and useful.

And my favorite arguments to justify or legitimize this action:
a) Somehow the private server may be as secure or harder to find than an official government one. Speaks for itself
b) It's ok because its always been done this way, and Colin Powell did it. Seriously? Has this ever been a defense for anything?
c) This is only an issue because the Republicans are making it an issue. We have a system where any candidate who runs for public office can expect to have every skeleton in their closet exposed and exploited to the fullest extent - are any of you truly surprised by this or suggesting that it should not be done?

 

Powell and Rice doing it doesn't make it OK for Clinton to do it. Especially after Obama signed changes to the Federal Records Act in 2014 that explicitly said federal officials can only use personal email addresses if they also copy or send the emails to their official account.

Plus, neither one of them ran for POTUS.

 

Brutal...

Bernie 2016!

 

FEEL THE ENERGY

 

Maybe she could defend dancing like that if she had dunked on that short hoop and teabagged one of the unlucky supporters. But, just no.

 

At least we don't have to ask the age old question "if Colin Powell jumped off a bridge, would you?" to Hillary, we now know the answer....and that her people would feel like her decision was justified.