Because at the time she did this is was against State Department internal regulations, but not a criminal offense.
You only put people in jail for criminal offenses that have jail as punishment codified in the law, and even then jail is usually only one of many options available as punishment.
I've worked as a consultant on various projects for the US Government for about 15 years now. Clinton keeps on running out the red herring that her using a private email server was not illegal. That's 100% true. When I'm working on a government project I'm free to use an external email server to discuss any non-classified information. However, I am not allowed to send any classified material using that server without prior, explicit approval from the security officer for the project (which you're almost
No Intentionally Sending classified information without that approval is a crime. You Have to know it is wrong and do it anyway. They have to prove you knew, or should have known. Where is your Black and White there?
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
tl;dr - she didn't have to know it was wrong, she simply had to be "extremely careless" (aka, "grossly negligent")
tl;dr - she didn't have to know it was wrong, she simply had to be "extremely careless" (aka, "grossly negligent")
And despite the fact the FBI director used the phrase "extreme carelessness" wrt the handling of sensitive info, somehow the defenders of lawlessness still admit to the fact that she very clearly committed multiple crimes.
tl;dr - she didn't have to know it was wrong, she simply had to be "extremely careless" (aka, "grossly negligent")
Extremely careless is not grossly negligent; you can argue an ongoing pattern of being extremely careless handling classified material is grossly negligent, but a few isolated cases would probably not reach that level, at least not in a legal sense.
Even if I were to stipulate to your assertion, having a private, insecure server for *years* is certainly an ongoing pattern.
From Comey:
There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
They had an ongoing set of improper conversations on this unclassified system for yea
Even if I were to stipulate to your assertion, having a private, insecure server for *years* is certainly an ongoing pattern.
However,the traffic, except for a handful, were unclassified and thus no violation occurred. Had she been sending and receiving classified traffic of years that would be a different story; but in this case there is no ongoing pattern of mishandling classified traffic.
From Comey:
There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
They had an ongoing set of improper conversations on this unclassified system for years.
Now, even if you want to argue that it *wasn't* grossly negligent, surely you can admit that this should have been adjudicated in a trial, instead of bypassed by political appointees.
Not really, doing so simply devolves into one party looking to damage the others by using these things for political gain; ultimately things that really aren't a big deal become a chance for the Democrats or Republicans to get pay back or damag
And quite frankly, after reading the report what she did is not that big of a deal and if the tables were turned the Republicans would be crying foul as loud as they are crying crime today.
I agree that if the tables were turned, both sides would take the opposite position.
I don't agree that isn't a big deal. Government corruption is particu
Well, we can start off with the network definition. Any server outside the firewall is by it's very nature, more insecure than the ones protected by a DMZ.
Moving up the network layers, let's talk about the protocol. Any server using insecure protocols to transmit data, is more insecure than ones protected by basic SSL encryption. The FBI document also details that gap (which, eventually, was remediated, but not before work related emails were transported across it).
;; ANSWER SECTION: state.gov. 66 IN A 72.166.186.151;; AUTHORITY SECTION: state.gov. 2482 IN NS tpsns11.terrenap.net. state.gov. 2482 IN NS authns1.centurylink.net. state.gov. 2482 IN NS authns2.centurylink.net. state.gov. 2482 IN NS tpsns12.terrenap.net.;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: authns1.centurylink.net. 105147 IN A 63.150.72.4 authns1.centurylink.net. 29708 IN AAAA 2001:428::5 authns2.centurylink.net. 105147 IN A
Let's review again the levels of security we're talking about here.
# protected by state department IT - internal classified network - internal unclassified network
# protected by clinton foundation cronies - external secret homebrew on an insecure network running RDP in the open with no encrypted transport for at least several months
The fact that some ninja breaks into the internal unclassified network of the state department (quite possibly by leveraging exploits coming from the secret homebrew server), doesn'
I'm talking about the "internal unclassified network". And I don't buy your freeway analogy. There are a lot of factors that affect hack risk.
For example, although the State Dept. may have had thicker doors, it probably also had a higher quantity of doors, and windows. H's home server did only one narrow job.
SD is also a more public target, meaning more hackers will likely try it. Obscurity does reduce risk.
And you didn't address my "as it was then" request, but merely changed the subject.
If only I could believe that it was truly hardened, following at least PCI policies:)
I'm surprised you keep trying to defend her grossly negligent actions by pretending that it was equivalent in safety or security to the option she was obligated to abide by, and obligated others to abide by.
How about that - if Clinton's secret homebrew server was so much better than the SD, why didn't she make it official policy for others to do the same?
"gross negligence" != "extreme carelessness". As the FBI specifically said. One is a legal term, with specific criteria, and the other is colloquial.
Gross negligence requires some aspect of voluntary and conscious disregard, usually, by the way. Which means she has to have known some specific information was classified when she sent it, and known that she should not be doing so.
There is conflicting case law in certain courts, but in general, the "Federal" rule as per SCOTUS does not require criminal intent:
But it is interesting to note, in the Lockwood case, the United States Supreme Court modified its earlier decisions by refusing to reject degrees of care or diligence. Thus, if there is anything of a "Federal" rule, it is that there are no degrees of negligence, but that there are degrees of care.
The act of creating the server was disconnected from any act of sending mail, in time, and in mind. She didn't even create the server, after all. That happened in like, 2007.
The act of avoiding a state approved blackberry, and using the previously created server, was intentional, wanton, and grossly negligent.
Whether or not you're talking about the actual, physical creation of the server, or the "creation" of it as a method for doing possibly classified work during her tenure at the state department, the fact remains the same - it was not "by accident", it was willful negligence.
Whenever a system becomes completely defined, some damn fool discovers
something which either abolishes the system or expands it beyond recognition.
Clinton should be in jail!!! (Score:-1, Troll)
Why isn't she in jail???
Re: (Score:4, Informative)
Because at the time she did this is was against State Department internal regulations, but not a criminal offense.
You only put people in jail for criminal offenses that have jail as punishment codified in the law, and even then jail is usually only one of many options available as punishment.
It was unequivocally a criminal offense (Score:0)
I've worked as a consultant on various projects for the US Government for about 15 years now. Clinton keeps on running out the red herring that her using a private email server was not illegal. That's 100% true. When I'm working on a government project I'm free to use an external email server to discuss any non-classified information. However, I am not allowed to send any classified material using that server without prior, explicit approval from the security officer for the project (which you're almost
Re: (Score:0)
No Intentionally Sending classified information without that approval is a crime.
You Have to know it is wrong and do it anyway.
They have to prove you knew, or should have known.
Where is your Black and White there?
Re:It was unequivocally a criminal offense (Score:5, Insightful)
Intent is not necessary to violate 18 U.S. Code 793
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
tl;dr - she didn't have to know it was wrong, she simply had to be "extremely careless" (aka, "grossly negligent")
Re: (Score:2)
And despite the fact the FBI director used the phrase "extreme carelessness" wrt the handling of sensitive info, somehow the defenders of lawlessness still admit to the fact that she very clearly committed multiple crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
I know you paid shills like to try to sway people to your side with a good bit of cherry picking, you really should pick your targets better.
Interesting how you removed half a clause from your copy & paste from above, specifically:
Was Clinton's email server a proper place of custody? If
Re: (Score:2)
tl;dr - she didn't have to know it was wrong, she simply had to be "extremely careless" (aka, "grossly negligent")
Extremely careless is not grossly negligent; you can argue an ongoing pattern of being extremely careless handling classified material is grossly negligent, but a few isolated cases would probably not reach that level, at least not in a legal sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if I were to stipulate to your assertion, having a private, insecure server for *years* is certainly an ongoing pattern.
From Comey:
They had an ongoing set of improper conversations on this unclassified system for yea
Re: (Score:2)
Even if I were to stipulate to your assertion, having a private, insecure server for *years* is certainly an ongoing pattern.
However,the traffic, except for a handful, were unclassified and thus no violation occurred. Had she been sending and receiving classified traffic of years that would be a different story; but in this case there is no ongoing pattern of mishandling classified traffic.
From Comey:
They had an ongoing set of improper conversations on this unclassified system for years.
Now, even if you want to argue that it *wasn't* grossly negligent, surely you can admit that this should have been adjudicated in a trial, instead of bypassed by political appointees.
Not really, doing so simply devolves into one party looking to damage the others by using these things for political gain; ultimately things that really aren't a big deal become a chance for the Democrats or Republicans to get pay back or damag
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's simply not true.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
104 is not a handful.
I agree that if the tables were turned, both sides would take the opposite position.
I don't agree that isn't a big deal. Government corruption is particu
Re: (Score:1)
Define "insecure server". It was not clearly worse nor clearly better than the regular office server she should have been using.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we can start off with the network definition. Any server outside the firewall is by it's very nature, more insecure than the ones protected by a DMZ.
Moving up the network layers, let's talk about the protocol. Any server using insecure protocols to transmit data, is more insecure than ones protected by basic SSL encryption. The FBI document also details that gap (which, eventually, was remediated, but not before work related emails were transported across it).
Finally, we can talk about process and
Re: (Score:1)
Do you have evidence the regular office email server was protected by a DMZ, used a higher level of encryption, and had good backups?
If I remember correctly, it died and the backups were faulty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I mean during her term. What they do now is irrelevant to the discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really asserting that the State Department email system was open to the internet, running RDP, during Clinton's tenure?
You've got a lot of speculation there, maybe more specific details would help :)
Re: (Score:1)
Something was "open":
http://www.reuters.com/article... [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Let's review again the levels of security we're talking about here.
# protected by state department IT
- internal classified network
- internal unclassified network
# protected by clinton foundation cronies
- external secret homebrew on an insecure network running RDP in the open with no encrypted transport for at least several months
The fact that some ninja breaks into the internal unclassified network of the state department (quite possibly by leveraging exploits coming from the secret homebrew server), doesn'
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about the "internal unclassified network". And I don't buy your freeway analogy. There are a lot of factors that affect hack risk.
For example, although the State Dept. may have had thicker doors, it probably also had a higher quantity of doors, and windows. H's home server did only one narrow job.
SD is also a more public target, meaning more hackers will likely try it. Obscurity does reduce risk.
And you didn't address my "as it was then" request, but merely changed the subject.
And it wasn't "se
Re: (Score:2)
If only I could believe that it was truly hardened, following at least PCI policies :)
I'm surprised you keep trying to defend her grossly negligent actions by pretending that it was equivalent in safety or security to the option she was obligated to abide by, and obligated others to abide by.
How about that - if Clinton's secret homebrew server was so much better than the SD, why didn't she make it official policy for others to do the same?
Interesting new source materi
Re: (Score:2)
Presented FYI: https://sharylattkisson.com/th... [sharylattkisson.com]
I would be interested to know if there is anything in that timeline you believe isn't accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
https://politics.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
How about failing a security audit dramatically?
Re: (Score:2)
"gross negligence" != "extreme carelessness". As the FBI specifically said. One is a legal term, with specific criteria, and the other is colloquial.
Gross negligence requires some aspect of voluntary and conscious disregard, usually, by the way. Which means she has to have known some specific information was classified when she sent it, and known that she should not be doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
See: http://scholarship.law.marquet... [marquette.edu]
And also: http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi... [jmls.edu]
There is conflicting case law in certain courts, but in general, the "Federal" rule as per SCOTUS does not require criminal intent:
By
Re: (Score:2)
The act of creating the server was disconnected from any act of sending mail, in time, and in mind. She didn't even create the server, after all. That happened in like, 2007.
Re: (Score:2)
The act of avoiding a state approved blackberry, and using the previously created server, was intentional, wanton, and grossly negligent.
Whether or not you're talking about the actual, physical creation of the server, or the "creation" of it as a method for doing possibly classified work during her tenure at the state department, the fact remains the same - it was not "by accident", it was willful negligence.