Indifference and ignorance: Delving deep into the Clinton e-mail saga

Clinton wasn't alone in mishandling communications, classified data.

Read the whole story

 

[Rrr7]

TheSmartGuy[/url]":1e94zmbq]

Studbolt[/url]":1e94zmbq]

The idea that the Clintons are corrupt has become generally accepted without ever having been confirmed by a positively astounding number of investigations by powerful people with motivation and money. I read the Starr Report when it came out, and I've looked through all of the various allegations as they were raised over the years, and I have yet to see anything other than a guy who cheated on his wife, got angry when accused by his enemies, and lied about it.

Really?

There is the Clinton Foundation. Bill Clinton charges 500-750 thousand USD for every public speech. The only reason he can charge that much is that Hilary is in the government, and they expect favors from her in return. Corruption right there.

Bill's speech fees are usually higher than Hillary's, so your argument doesn't hold; also those fees are an exercise in free market, which should make all you neocons happy.

Btw the irony in your username didn't go unnoticed

 

[Snark218]

tigger111[/url]":1fw1bvz6]

Snark218[/url]":1fw1bvz6]

Isahaya[/url]":1fw1bvz6]Sounds familiar. This guy did very similar things and was prosecuted by the FBI for it:
https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-re ... -materials

The major - and obviously critical - difference being that they could establish clear intent to mishandle classified information in his case. They could not do so in Clinton's case. That's not a minor point, and it doesn't make what she did equivalent to his case, as much as conservatives desperately want to conflate them.

That is total BS. Having an outside server is already violation of policy so that is intent to mishandle classified information.

Well, I guess you - internet rando on Ars - clearly know more about that statute and its interpretation than the DoJ and FBI.

Or, y'know, maybe fucking not.

 

[drachasor]

Snark218[/url]":1iaos7db]

tigger111[/url]":1iaos7db]

Snark218[/url]":1iaos7db]

Isahaya[/url]":1iaos7db]Sounds familiar. This guy did very similar things and was prosecuted by the FBI for it:
https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-re ... -materials

The major - and obviously critical - difference being that they could establish clear intent to mishandle classified information in his case. They could not do so in Clinton's case. That's not a minor point, and it doesn't make what she did equivalent to his case, as much as conservatives desperately want to conflate them.

That is total BS. Having an outside server is already violation of policy so that is intent to mishandle classified information.

Well, I guess you - internet rando on Ars - clearly know more about that statute and its interpretation than the DoJ and FBI.

Or, y'know, maybe fucking not.

Or more simply, since the Secret Network has its own mail system and isn't connected to the internet, and the TS network is the same, having anything on the internet (like a mail server) inherently cannot be evidence that you intended to mishandle classified info -- not unless you took something from a classified system and manually transferred it. Hillary didn't do any such transfer though.

You are perfectly well allowed to email from the nonclassified system to non-gov/DoD email address, including about work matters when relevant.

Finding email chains with information that was put in them that never should have been typed into the non-classified system is the real problem. Again though, no evidence Hillary did that. They can't even proved she read the emails with the TS or S info -- and lots of people don't read every bloody email chain they get in their inbox (and the higher up you go in an organization, the more common that is -- too many emails to thoroughly read them all even if that's all you did).

 

[bb-15]

dmc5179[/url]":3n9wqnmj]Mr. Gallagher has really had to work hard to bend words in certain places in order to manipulate the story.

- "No one told her not to use the server" And you follow that up with, because her team lied to the OIG saying the server had already been approved. If you lie to your dad and tell him mom said you could go can you later come back and say, dad never said I couldn't go? Come on son.

- The idea that Hillary Clinton did not have the technical understanding to know that what she was doing was wrong is ridiculous. The author, and the FBI, are either trying to trick you or are themselves too stupid to understand how smart HRC is. She knew she wanted to avoid records laws and have easy access to classified emails in a way not consistent with State's policies or the law so she asked some tech guys to set it up for her. If I don't understand the inner workings of an AR-15 riffle but I ask a hit man to wack someone I can't go to the FBI and say, look I don't even know how a gun works. Again, come on son.

- There is no way to get around the fact that she broke the law, period. It's not possible to argue in any way that she did not break the law and illegally handled classified information. There are only a few arguments to be had:

- she was too stupid to understand so don't charge her
- she didn't really mean it so don't charge her
- other people did it so don't charge her (which is a lie on it's face for the most serious charges)

By this logic an incompetent repentant bank robber should never be charged. He's dumb and sorry he did it so leave him alone.

On Ars some people understand computer tech issues involved in the use of private email by federal officials. Since Ars is also a science site and often has legal articles, some people here are able look at the facts of a case and approach it logically.

1. Federal government officials want email convenience and need top notch security.
And unfortunately US federal government IT has lagged in providing convenient and secure email.
* Result; One survey found that up to 1/3 of high-level federal executives routinely use personal email for business,
http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/08/high- ... -business/

- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell used AOL which is notorious for being hacked.
The rampant use of private email for federal government business is a known IT issue.

* None of these thousands of federal officials have ever been charged for simply using private email for federal government business.
As long as federal officials are not involved in espionage and giving away secrets to foreign governments, no charges will be filed.

2. H. Clinton had a specific need for smartphone email. Her staff negotiated with the NSA for H. Clinton to get an approved smartphone. From an IT perspective her need is obvious considering the amount of traveling she had to do, the number of meetings she had to attend and the massive amount of email she received.
3. The NSA did not provide H. Clinton with an approved smartphone due to cost issues.
The previous Secretary of State, C. Rice, and her staff had approved Blackberries but they were not available to H. Clinton again due to cost.
4. H. Clinton did what many federal officials have done, use private email. Her use of a Blackberry was known in the federal government. And her setting up of a private server was known within the federal government.
** A problem? Certainly. But it points to a widespread federal IT issue.
A large percentage of federal government officials use private email for government business without being charged with a crime.
And so the chances of H. Clinton being charged for using private email? Zero.

 

[Thunderracker]

Aside from the politics, of which I don't really care about. What strikes me about this whole situation is that the National Security Agency appears to be entirely interested in the offensive side of the InfoSec equation. How is it possible that anyone brought an unauthorized wireless device into the Executive suite at State? Shouldn't the NSA have detected such an intrusion and responded accordingly? Where are the NSA pen tests where they actually test the digital defenses of government departments?

Second, it seems that the guys running the IT infrastructure at State were told to bugger off when they brought up questions from the movers and shakers who worked for the Secretary of State. It seems to me that State should have at least as good of security controls as the DOD, or CIA. Clinton's Chief of Staff should not have been able to muscle the IT department like this.

Third, in what world does it make sense for there to be a politically appointed IT department position?

Fourth, There is some blame from these higher ups who refuse to change how they work, even in light of real security concerns. That is not a politician problem. It is the same problem faced by a lot of IT guys where the CEO wants to do something unwise, and muscles the IT guys out of the conversation because all he wants to hear is a yes. Memo to CEOs, presidents and even Secretaries of State. When you do something against the advice of the professionals, it does not make you powerful. It makes you incredibly stupid. The word no is in the English language for a reason.

So because of all this, the choice is down to an idiot or a fascist. Yay America... I guess.

 

[bb-15]

Thunderracker[/url]":383n2ea9]...What strikes me about this whole situation is that the National Security Agency appears to be entirely interested in the offensive side of the InfoSec equation. How is it possible that anyone brought an unauthorized wireless device into the Executive suite at State? Shouldn't the NSA have detected such an intrusion and responded accordingly? Where are the NSA pen tests where they actually test the digital defenses of government departments?

Second...It seems to me that State should have at least as good of security controls as the DOD, or CIA. Clinton's Chief of Staff should not have been able to muscle the IT department like this.

Third, in what world does it make sense for there to be a politically appointed IT department position?

Agreed about some things here.
1. The National Security Agency (NSA) seems to be focused on spying on others for instance with the PRISM program.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_( ... ce_program)
2. Documents show that high level federal officials wanted the NSA to get more involved with federal government IT.
That would include providing secure equipment and systems to high level federal officials like H. Clinton.
Result; the NSA did not want to do it (except for Obama).
- And from that federal departments were left with doing redundant tasks in separate IT departments which had limited resources, limited knowledge and authority.
3. Since about 1/3 of high level federal officials use private email for government business, it is impossible to claim that security in other federal departments outside of the State Department is airtight.
http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/08/high- ... -business/
It just has not been investigated.
And frankly I don't think anyone in the federal government wants to open up such a government wide investigation.
Why? Because when 1/3 of high level employees are using less secure private email for business, then I would predict that every US federal department / Congressional office has someone who is using less secure private email in this way.
4. This private email use (or less secure email use by State) is not solely an H. Clinton problem or solely a State Department problem imo.
The problem of use of private email and improper use of less secure email I would predict is widespread throughout the entire federal government.

 

[fryhole]

Additionally, the OIG report and the e-mails themselves show not just carelessness by Clinton but a general indifference and even willful ignorance toward information security and document retention laws and rules at the State Department by both political appointees and career staffers. There was simply a culture where no one said "no" to the Secretary—no evidence exists that anyone ever directly contradicted her view or told Clinton not to use her private e-mail for reasons other than getting past State’s e-mail security filters. (The only documented time someone said "no" to her was when she asked for a Blackberry like President Barack Obama's, and the NSA refused her.) Clinton’s appointed staff, career professionals at State, and others failed to tell her what she was doing was wrong. In some cases, staffers actively told IT people at State who did question Clinton's private e-mail use to shut up.

Sorry but the end of that paragraph blatently contradicts everything else int eh rest of the paragraph. The IT folks were telling those on her staff they interacted with NO and the staffers were directly telling the IT folsk to ignore policy and protocol. The staffers answer to Clinton and therefroe she is liable and should be held accountable.

Geez -- this situation is not rocket science -- he deliberately opted to not follow the law / policy / procedure -- just because everyone else before her didn't do it -- so that makes it okay ? WTF.

If people everywhere wer going around killing other random people -- then you decide to go do it and get caught -- you should be able to get off with the excuse "everyone else was doing it" - yeah that's how the law works - right.

 

[fryhole]

None of that changes the facts—it only magnifies how poorly the United States' diplomatic service handles information systems and security. And due to inadequate resources at State and outright resistance from the NSA to provide a solution, the State Department and the National Security Agency failed to provide the kind of support for Clinton early on that would have prevented such a situation from continuing.

This could have easily been handled by someone that understnads computer security and federal regulations having the balls to tell the Sec of State -- NO. It's not f*cking hard to do. Be nice about it but someone in that position is not some untouchable overlord -- we are not living in a dictatorship society where you are not allowed to question government representatives on their whims. The Federal Gov't is not some private corporation where you might be afriad of getting fired for telling your boss something they don't want to hear. Her position is that of a public servant -- first and foremost -- plain and simple. Now she's vying for the premier public servant position and what happens if / when she f*cks that up ?

Sorry but support staff need to grow their own pair of balls and tell their superiors that what they are requesting is ILLEGAL. Get it in writing -- so there is a record of the request if that official chooses to ignore the warning. And quit fawning over god damned politicans like they are demi-gods. Geez. Public officals serve people -- NOT the other way around.

 

[fryhole]

According to State OIG testimony to the House Oversight Committee, questions were raised about Clinton's e-mail by State IT team members. But State OIG was then told by the head of the Office of Information Resources Management for the Executive Secretariat (S/ES-IRM) that the system had been cleared by State attorneys and to never bring it up again.

Sorry but this reads as they knew about it violating regs and law and ignored it -- cover up.

 

[fryhole]

The short of it is that Clinton wanted to do things here way instead of comply with Federal Law and she should be held accountable -- indicted and prosecuted. Then forced to withdraw from the Presidental election on the grounds that she is unfit to hold Office.

Then delay the election until another candidate can be found for the Democratic party. Or someone else to run against the Republican Nom.


This is how bad it is -- she is running for President and has built a career of lying and twisting rules and laws to suit her career for the last 50 years. Now he has been blatently cuaght circumventing federal law and nobody is doing jack shit about it.

If she wins the Presidency -- anyone that votes for her desrves what they get.

Hell -- if Trump wins -- those voters desrve what they get also. He ain't no bag of sunshine either.

 

[drachasor]

fryhole[/url]":xs11msqg]The short of it is that Clinton wanted to do things here way instead of comply with Federal Law and she should be held accountable -- indicted and prosecuted. Then forced to withdraw from the Presidental election on the grounds that she is unfit to hold Office.

Except she didn't break any law that's enforced -- and the only arguable law you could argue she had broken requires gross negligence. At best there's just evidence of regular negligence.

There's a world of difference between violating policy and violating the law. She violated a fair bit of policy, but not the law.

The bigger issue is how bad government IT is, particularly the State Department -- which is apparently deplorably antiquated and underfunded. The investigation shows how their own systems often failed to perform their basic functions. That's probably why every Secretary of State before Clinton also used a private email address for non-classified correspondence. Undoubtedly there was classified material in minute amounts there too (minute relative to the overall quantity of email).

 

[Devin]

soulsabr[/url]":e8mbm8cg]

jwo7777777[/url]":e8mbm8cg]The 2016 Presidential Campaign season, brought to you by the adjective: "Haughty".

And the number: "joint".

Hah. Been a while since I last heard that.

 

[NickBII]

fryhole[/url]":1i35d01f]

Additionally, the OIG report and the e-mails themselves show not just carelessness by Clinton but a general indifference and even willful ignorance toward information security and document retention laws and rules at the State Department by both political appointees and career staffers. There was simply a culture where no one said "no" to the Secretary—no evidence exists that anyone ever directly contradicted her view or told Clinton not to use her private e-mail for reasons other than getting past State’s e-mail security filters. (The only documented time someone said "no" to her was when she asked for a Blackberry like President Barack Obama's, and the NSA refused her.) Clinton’s appointed staff, career professionals at State, and others failed to tell her what she was doing was wrong. In some cases, staffers actively told IT people at State who did question Clinton's private e-mail use to shut up.

Sorry but the end of that paragraph blatently contradicts everything else int eh rest of the paragraph. The IT folks were telling those on her staff they interacted with NO and the staffers were directly telling the IT folsk to ignore policy and protocol. The staffers answer to Clinton and therefroe she is liable and should be held accountable.

Geez -- this situation is not rocket science -- he deliberately opted to not follow the law / policy / procedure -- just because everyone else before her didn't do it -- so that makes it okay ? WTF.

If people everywhere wer going around killing other random people -- then you decide to go do it and get caught -- you should be able to get off with the excuse "everyone else was doing it" - yeah that's how the law works - right.

1. Much as Executive Branch guys might be in denial about this*, you can't be sent to prison simply for violating policy. Policies of the Executive branch have the same legal status as any decree from the President, and there's no way in hell the Courts are going to let a Presidential decree send people to prison.

2. If the law includes the phrase 'Gross Negligence;' you would easily get off. Gross negligence is a conscious failure to take reasonable care, and if everyone is doing it and no-one is getting into trouble you probably weren't conscious you weren't supposed to do it either.

*To be fair, their denial about this is baked into the system. Just as Legislative branch guys are supposed to think that ignoring Congressional investigations is tantamount to murder, Executive branch guys are supposed to think that disobeying their boss is the worst thing you can do.

 

[soulsabr]

Devin[/url]":3e8q0akt]

soulsabr[/url]":3e8q0akt]

jwo7777777[/url]":3e8q0akt]The 2016 Presidential Campaign season, brought to you by the adjective: "Haughty".

And the number: "joint".

Hah. Been a while since I last heard that.

Glad to see at least somebody caught the line.

 

[cactusbush]

 

[Hack-n-Slash]

cactusbush[/url]":1ycbgk9g]

I know you're not likely to let facts get in the way of your opinion, but hey:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp

 

[cactusbush]

Hack-n-Slash[/url]":1h7oew33]

cactusbush[/url]":1h7oew33]

I know you're not likely to let facts get in the way of your opinion, but hey:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp

Which facts? Who Snopes - Snopes by the way?
This longwinded disclaimer proves nothing except that Ziefman - who claimed to have fired her, wasn't her immediate boss and didn't actually have the authority. He would have fired her if he could have – and for stated reasons.

 

[Hack-n-Slash]

cactusbush[/url]":2xp4u44w]

Hack-n-Slash[/url]":2xp4u44w]

cactusbush[/url]":2xp4u44w]

I know you're not likely to let facts get in the way of your opinion, but hey:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp

Which facts? Who Snopes - Snopes by the way?
This longwinded disclaimer proves nothing except that Ziefman - who claimed to have fired her, wasn't her immediate boss and didn't actually have the authority. He would have fired her if he could have – and for stated reasons.

Did you actually read the part pertaining to the "[Hillary] was a liar" statement?

e.g. "But nearly everything stated in this passage is wrong: Hillary Rodham didn't draft a legal brief that was "unethical" (save that it made a legal argument Zeifman didn't agree with), she didn't "confiscate" public documents, and she didn't do anything that she hadn't been directed to do by the man who was her and Zeifman's superior."

 

[drachasor]

Hack-n-Slash[/url]":1ade2kp8]

cactusbush[/url]":1ade2kp8]

Hack-n-Slash[/url]":1ade2kp8]

cactusbush[/url]":1ade2kp8]

I know you're not likely to let facts get in the way of your opinion, but hey:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp

Which facts? Who Snopes - Snopes by the way?
This longwinded disclaimer proves nothing except that Ziefman - who claimed to have fired her, wasn't her immediate boss and didn't actually have the authority. He would have fired her if he could have – and for stated reasons.

Did you actually read the part pertaining to the "[Hillary] was a liar" statement?

e.g. "But nearly everything stated in this passage is wrong: Hillary Rodham didn't draft a legal brief that was "unethical" (save that it made a legal argument Zeifman didn't agree with), she didn't "confiscate" public documents, and she didn't do anything that she hadn't been directed to do by the man who was her and Zeifman's superior."

And note that all of that is backed up by statements Zeifman himself made, before changing his story decades after the fact.

 

[jeadly]

microlith[/url]":2kn5uhz9]

mycroftxxx[/url]":2kn5uhz9]it is also very clear from context that keeping her email as far away from FOIA as possible was a major driver in the personal server situation.

Which is an assertion being made, but utterly lacking in support.

I'll agree there's no support in the form of an email stating "I want to use my own server so that none of my communications are responsive to FOIA requests."

But there's support in observing the actions taken. Physically leaving the SCIF where the staff works to use email instead of using the hardline account available in the name of 'convenience'. Submitting absolutely no records for two years after leaving office, despite out-processing clearly requiring it. Finally, after Congress said 'WTF do you mean you don't have any emails?' and the revelation of her private server by Guccifer, submitting 30,000 emails whose headers appeared work related and permanently deleting 34,000 without examining them.

 

[EaseOfUseFan]

brionl[/url]":1rhd8a31]

NemesisX00[/url]":1rhd8a31]Tbecause if Clinton wasn't smart enough to realize she was doing something incredibly stupid, and subsequently is not charged for clearly breaking (or allowing her subordinates to break) federal law, there is no reason to expect she will do anything differently if elected to the position of president.

Though I suppose I would prefer blatant ignorance to willful malice in a president...

According to her own autobiography she was ignorant of Bill cheating on her.

And still seems to be.