|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Currently reading Lisa Page testimony (I started from the second part). I am at around page 31, it talks in details about the investigation of Clinton's server, why retention of classified information was pursued and not dissemination (page 30/31). So for context on further findings (I am not going to read through everything, it's too long, and I can't copy paste from the document, so any comment would need rewriting an entire section :-/), I am going to paste a post I made on GH's blog, that was not followed up on, since it was just before the thread got closed. In this post I made an assessment of the technical details that were reported in the FBI investigation, and claims that were made by republicans.
On February 06 2019 03:01 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2019 03:01 Nouar wrote:On February 06 2019 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On February 06 2019 03:01 Nouar wrote:On February 06 2019 02:31 xDaunt wrote:
I'm not overlooking anyone's personal use of emails. But to my knowledge, no one did what Hillary did. Nor was anyone else's email compromised to the degree that Hillary's was. Now, if you want to take the position that Hillary's use of personal email was investigated, I think that's fair. There was quite a bit of investigation into it. However, that still doesn't change the fact that it was all swept under the rug by DOJ rather than prosecuted as it should have been. Again, Comey outlined in explicit detail how she violated the law even though he purposefully tweaked some of the language that he used to justify not referring her for prosecution.
As an IT security specialist, and ex-custodian of government cryptos, I have issue with the assumption that Hillary's emails were compromised. First, IT security : her server was not hacked to the extent of the available knowledge and expertise conducted... So no, her email server, while underprotected (since it was accessible via RDP hence somewhat vulnerable), has not been compromised until proven otherwise. Then a fucking idiot (sorry, no other words) deleted emails after their retention was ordered, as we was supposed to have done the deletion prior to the request but failed to do so. Second, classified data assets compromission is by definition when classified information is out in the open (lost, opened in an unsecured area where unauthorized eyes can land on them, other reasons) and has been potentially disseminated. While there was definitely a breach of the rules in dealing with classified information, it was not determined that she had lost classified data due to that. (If you compare to the guy that took pictures of classified areas of a submarine, and SENT THEM to someone else, that shouldn't have had access to those. That guy, whom Trump often referred to, has been convicted due to that dissemination of information). She did lie about the fact that it contained no classified information, and probably should have been charged with that, at least. Though it seems the messages in question were not really properly marked, and from experience, politicians, though they should, are usually not proficient enough in classifications. HRC was not a newbie, she should know, but it's pretty hard to prove the intent to lie/deceive. Again, you are supposedly a lawyer, but often use very specific words in the wrong way. Please be careful. I'm not assuming anything. Members of the house intel committee have repeatedly stated that her email was compromised by multiple foreign agencies. Hell, Louis Gohmert said that the Chinese were reading her email in real time. EDIT: For example.... The Clinton Server Anomalies At two points during Priestap’s testimony, the possibility of access by a foreign adversary to Clinton’s server was discussed. This issue was first broached during testimony by Horowitz and was again explored during Strzok’s public testimony under questioning from Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas). “The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an ‘anomaly on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list,’” Gohmert said. “It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia,” he added. The Clinton email server investigation originated from an assessment contained within a June 29, 2015, memo from the inspectors general of the Intelligence Community and the State Department, which detailed the existence of “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” On July 6, 2015, the IGs for the Intelligence Community made a referral to the FBI, pursuant to the Intelligence Authorization Act. The FBI then formally opened an investigation on July 10, 2015. In either late 2015 or early 2016, the IC inspector general, Chuck McCullough, sent Frank Rucker and Janette McMillan to meet with the FBI in order to detail the anomaly that had been uncovered. That meeting was attended by four individuals, including Strzok, then-Executive Assistant Director John Giacalone, and then-Section Chief Dean Chappell. The identity of the fourth individual remains unknown, though Moffa, who also met with the IG at various times, is a possible candidate. Charles Kable, who also met with the ICIG at several points, is another possible candidate. Priestap testified that he had not been briefed on the Clinton server anomaly by Strzok, noting “this would have been a big deal.” “I am not aware of any evidence that demonstrated that. I’m also not aware of any evidence that my team or anybody reporting to me on this had advised me that there were anomalies that couldn’t be accounted for. I don’t recall that,” he said. Priestap’s admission that this was all new information to him, prompted an observation from Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) that Strzok appeared to be exercising significant investigative control: Mr. Meadows: “It sounds like Peter Strzok was kind of driving the train here. Would you agree with that?” Mr. Priestap: “Peter and Jon, yeah.” As Meadows noted during testimony, this matter still had to be officially “closed out” by the FBI before the official closing of the Clinton investigation. Strzok personally called the IC inspector general within minutes of Comey’s July 5, 2016, press conference on the Clinton investigation, telling him that the FBI would be sending a “referral to close it out.” Meadows seemed genuinely surprised that Strzok had apparently kept this information successfully hidden from Priestap, noting, “I’m a Member from North Carolina, and you’re saying that I have better intel than you do?” Source. I'm trying to dig a little to see what I can find on these alleged metadata anomalies. If this is true, then all the investigation team should be prosecuted, but I doubt they would take so many risks, it sounds really crazy. So I'm trying to see what I can find (technical details, but I doubt I'll find them). The part about Louis Gohmert, either you try to be fair and also trust what the dems have to say about Trump's team lying to congress, either you don't care and trust only republicans, not dems. If what he said was true and Strzok lied, then why haven't the House and DOJ pushed for prosecution for lying to Congress ? (both controlled by Reps at the time...) I'll come back after getting more details. https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/Hillary R. Clinton Part 01 of 28/viewPage 11 : A notice recommended employees to avoid conducting state business with personnal emails. Then two lines later, a policy requiring those who conduct state business on a personal email to forward a copy to a State address for record-keeping. This is probably why she's not being prosecuted for the private mail server itself. Page 17 : X had trouble exporting from Mac to Exchange so he sent the whole email archive from Clinton to a personal gmail account. Unskilled, dangerous idiot. Page 20 : Confidential mails with no distinctive headers, only a (C) somewhere on top the paragraph. And that's why we use plugins like Classify to properly and compulsorily mark emails, since non-tech people are not versed in those and easily confused. Page 27 : forensic analysis, sadly very partial due to 3 servers over the years. (btw in an earlier page, it was mentioned that the server admin was requested to encrypt the mails to avoid anyone but the recipient being able to access those. He did not do it to be able to troubleshoot potential email issues. Dangerous idiot #2. Page 29 : one suspicious login via TOR on a staffer's email that did not know TOR. (so that's one address compromised) Page 31 : 2011, a memo urging state employees to limit the use of personal emails for State business (wtf, this should not be urging, these should be expressly forbidding... What were their IT SecOffs doing??), stating that "some home systems have been compromised and reconfigured to forward copies to an undisclosed recipient" (does not say it happened to HRC's server) Page 32 : Blumenthal had his AOL account compromised, and a Confidential email chain disseminated. Now that is a proper compromission. Page 32 : the metadata of the headers have been extracted to produce electronic signatures and try to find these emails in the available databases, from FBI and other agencies, and even foreign intelligence agencies, to see if they were disseminated. No results. It's at this step that if there were strange things in the metadata, it would have appeared clearly. VERY clearly. So trying to not disclose that part would be very strange, especially since Horowitz made another investigation afterwards. In the army, she would have been punished with administrative sanctions for that (I was, for vaguely related items, where no information was actually disseminated. Not the US army of course). However, pushing a criminal investigation with these kind of elements would not bring conclusive charges and would be a waste. https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-fbi-ignored-major-lead-on-clinton-emails-closed-door-testimonies-suggest_2782019.htmlChina receiving emails in real time : 2 anonymous sources to FOX and DailyCaller. No proof, logs or anything available that I can find. Well, it says that Horowitz investigation did not talk about that lead in the report, so I am not going to read it (3 days saved, yeah !) https://gohmert.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398647Yeah, well. It seems Rucker was not called to testify. Why ? The Reps were in control of Senate and House. So while it's concerning if true, they had ample opportunity to bring McCullough and Rucker to testify. They did not. I cannot find that ICIG report available, and while Gohmert said that ICIG can document that, they did not. So I call bullshit on it. By the way China is only a "likely culprit" in this case. Conclusion : yes, you ARE assuming the server was compromised, as the information is coming from conservative outlets on anonymous sources, and a lone Republican (when it's from Dems, you are discarding this type of rumor easily). No available information lets us know it was. One user had its credentials found, and its mails accessed. There is no available proof, nor available lead, that it was compromised. I will trust you if you can provide me with something showing evidence it was the case (I'd be happy with the ICIG supposed report) Show nested quote +On February 06 2019 01:52 xDaunt wrote:
With regards to the email server in particular, I can think of a few reasons as to why no one wants it fully investigated and exposed. From what I read in the FBI full report (I ate most of the 30+pages), the technical details and the investigation was really thorough and cross-checked, even from random dumps of the emails that were leftovers from botched migrations, on old laptops or USBs. I didn't really find any glaring holes. (I cannot tell you my exact job obviously, but I have been dealing with these kind of deep dives for some time). Of course, the files themselves are not included, and if that ICIG report is true, it IS a big deal. But in this case, it looks to me that the "deep state" is a wish to explain that the results do not match with conservatives expectations (as is the case on some of Trump's own investigations) Show nested quote +On February 06 2019 01:52 xDaunt wrote:
It may be that the extent of the damage done from the compromise is so severe that people have deemed that the public simply can't be allowed to know about it, kinda like how the US government hid from the American people the true extent of the damage done at Pearl Harbor until after the war. Remember a few years ago when it was reported that the Chinese purged/killed virtually all of the US intelligence assets in China?
Right, but honestly, are you even fathoming the damage Trump's way of governing is doing to the world and the US first and foremost ? It's a lot worse. I'm not even talking about the US in its internal microcosm, I'm talking about the place and rank of the US around the world, your leadership position. Africa has been abandoned to China, you are alienating all your historic allies, to the benefit of Russia or China down the line, the US isn't to be trusted anymore (I mean, we already did not trust it to an extent, but diplomacy worked). Most of the countries are bracing and hoping that the norm will return after 2020, and we can resume relationships as usual, but a lot has been irreparably damaged severely. Results won't be shown for quite a long time though. Everything is reduced to money and cost by POTUS, he has no grasp on long term investment, stability or working together for future benefits. Only trying to destroy everything else and unbalance what he can, in hope of short-term gains for the US (questionable) and his image. He has no contingency plan in case things go south, and does not intend to take responsibility when things turn sour. I could care less about internal US policies. Pearl Harbor, are you talking about the advance knowledge conspiracy theory ? Well... Even if true, it's the same as 9/11 Rumsfeld/Bush theory to trigger a war on terror. Also, have you heard of Coventry and Enigma ?
Page 32 and 33, Page says she is not aware that ICIG did a forensic investigation before referring matters to FBI, nor is she aware if Rucker was called to FBI about the alleged intrusions in Clinton's server he raised (supposedly in the initial referral according to republicans, but she isn't aware of it). She says forensics was run anyway by the FBI team, saying they are extremely good.
Reps argue that an undetectable intrusion could have happened.
She answers that yes everything is possible, however GRU are the best and the FBI still managed to name the GRU agents involved in the DNC hacking.
|
Tbh, Hillary's email server was abundantly shady, and if it is a crime for someone to take a classified document from their workplace to their home, it does seem to defy common sense to say that Hillary didnt commit a crime. She would have to get off on a technicality (i.e., the law that is in place did not anticipate someone using a private server).
|
That email server was weird. But government email and IT is terrible in general and the work arounds that government officials have to do to function with modern tech is a much larger problem. But after all the investigations into Clinton’s email server, there has not been an update to laws and regulations surrounding government email and best practices.
|
On March 13 2019 05:05 Doodsmack wrote:
Tbh, Hillary's email server was abundantly shady, and if it is a crime for someone to take a classified document from their workplace to their home, it does seem to defy common sense to say that Hillary didnt commit a crime. She would have to get off on a technicality (i.e., the law that is in place did not anticipate someone using a private server).
If you read my post carefully, and Page's testimony, you will see that the classified email chains that were on that server were not necessarily properly marked, and not necessarily in Clinton's inbox. It's also pretty hard for diplomatic networks to handle classified data since they come from all around the world, in places where it's pretty hard to get a fully classified network going. The one we have for embassies is called RESIAD, basically a VPN proxy over internet, and secure networks go on top of that same link with additional encryption devices (link). It's an added step of difficulty for users (which does not excuse mistakes).
Executives are not really well versed in classification markings, and we have to remind them every day to use different networks for different levels of information. If I have to do that in the military, imagine in the civilian world...
To prosecute beyond a reasonable doubt, you need to prove intent. The server itself would be slightly problematic but not a huge deal if it only contained unclass data. However as Page says, there is bound to be some spill (Page 27).
There is also a huge difference legally speaking between mishandling private information (it was not in the proper place, but only allowed people had access to it), and dissemination (think an intrusion in the system) or even worse, (conscious) disclosure (via leak to media or other people).
It's not really a technicality, it's that they couldn't get to the level of proving a crime beyond reasonable doubt for several reasons (no proof of dissemination, no disclosure, and no clear intent to mishandle since documents were not properly marked and only authorised recipients got them).
|
Page 37 to 45, Page explains why they removed the "gross negligence" comment, and instead moved up another paragraph with "extremely careless" since the former actually had a legal meaning, considered by DOJ as unconstitutionally vague, meaning nobody gets prosecuted on that.
(the document so one does not have to go back several pages to find the link)
https://dougcollins.house.gov/sites/dougcollins.house.gov/files/Lisa Page interview Day 2.pdf
50 pages is enough for today. I didn't see anything unusual or surprising in these. (And I am pleasantly surprised to see an interview done with respect, both from questions and answers. Completely different from the Cohen one, republicans actually had good questions in this !)
|
On March 13 2019 05:22 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2019 05:05 Doodsmack wrote:
Tbh, Hillary's email server was abundantly shady, and if it is a crime for someone to take a classified document from their workplace to their home, it does seem to defy common sense to say that Hillary didnt commit a crime. She would have to get off on a technicality (i.e., the law that is in place did not anticipate someone using a private server). If you read my post carefully, and Page's testimony, you will see that the classified email chains that were on that server were not necessarily properly marked, and not necessarily in Clinton's inbox. It's also pretty hard for diplomatic networks to handle classified data since they come from all around the world, in places where it's pretty hard to get a fully classified network going. The one we have for embassies is called RESIAD, basically a VPN proxy over internet, and secure networks go on top of that same link with additional encryption devices ( link). It's an added step of difficulty for users (which does not excuse mistakes). Executives are not really well versed in classification markings, and we have to remind them every day to use different networks for different levels of information. If I have to do that in the military, imagine in the civilian world... To prosecute beyond a reasonable doubt, you need to prove intent. The server itself would be slightly problematic but not a huge deal if it only contained unclass data. However as Page says, there is bound to be some spill (Page 27). There is also a huge difference legally speaking between mishandling private information (it was not in the proper place, but only allowed people had access to it), and dissemination (think an intrusion in the system) or even worse, (conscious) disclosure (via leak to media or other people). It's not really a technicality, it's that they couldn't get to the level of proving a crime beyond reasonable doubt for several reasons (no proof of dissemination, no disclosure, and no clear intent to mishandle since documents were not properly marked and only authorised recipients got them).
But if you've set out from the outset to put all your emails on a private system, haven't you disseminated to that private system? And you've mishandled because you put it all on a private system? If you've set out to only use a private system, you've set out to put your emails and documents on that system. You've set out to put classified info on a private system. Though I guess if she mostly used a gov't system for classified stuff, that might change things.
|
On Page 25 of the Day 2 transcript, Page said it was the DOJ’s decision — the Obama DOJ’s decision — not to put the email server case in front of a grand jury. Oof.
|
On March 13 2019 06:06 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2019 05:22 Nouar wrote:On March 13 2019 05:05 Doodsmack wrote:
Tbh, Hillary's email server was abundantly shady, and if it is a crime for someone to take a classified document from their workplace to their home, it does seem to defy common sense to say that Hillary didnt commit a crime. She would have to get off on a technicality (i.e., the law that is in place did not anticipate someone using a private server). If you read my post carefully, and Page's testimony, you will see that the classified email chains that were on that server were not necessarily properly marked, and not necessarily in Clinton's inbox. It's also pretty hard for diplomatic networks to handle classified data since they come from all around the world, in places where it's pretty hard to get a fully classified network going. The one we have for embassies is called RESIAD, basically a VPN proxy over internet, and secure networks go on top of that same link with additional encryption devices ( link). It's an added step of difficulty for users (which does not excuse mistakes). Executives are not really well versed in classification markings, and we have to remind them every day to use different networks for different levels of information. If I have to do that in the military, imagine in the civilian world... To prosecute beyond a reasonable doubt, you need to prove intent. The server itself would be slightly problematic but not a huge deal if it only contained unclass data. However as Page says, there is bound to be some spill (Page 27). There is also a huge difference legally speaking between mishandling private information (it was not in the proper place, but only allowed people had access to it), and dissemination (think an intrusion in the system) or even worse, (conscious) disclosure (via leak to media or other people). It's not really a technicality, it's that they couldn't get to the level of proving a crime beyond reasonable doubt for several reasons (no proof of dissemination, no disclosure, and no clear intent to mishandle since documents were not properly marked and only authorised recipients got them). But if you've set out from the outset to put all your emails on a private system, haven't you disseminated to that private system? And you've mishandled because you put it all on a private system? If you've set out to only use a private system, you've set out to put your emails and documents on that system. You've set out to put classified info on a private system. Though I guess if she mostly used a gov't system for classified stuff, that might change things.
Yes, this is exactly the problem.
|
On March 13 2019 06:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2019 06:06 Doodsmack wrote:On March 13 2019 05:22 Nouar wrote:On March 13 2019 05:05 Doodsmack wrote:
Tbh, Hillary's email server was abundantly shady, and if it is a crime for someone to take a classified document from their workplace to their home, it does seem to defy common sense to say that Hillary didnt commit a crime. She would have to get off on a technicality (i.e., the law that is in place did not anticipate someone using a private server). If you read my post carefully, and Page's testimony, you will see that the classified email chains that were on that server were not necessarily properly marked, and not necessarily in Clinton's inbox. It's also pretty hard for diplomatic networks to handle classified data since they come from all around the world, in places where it's pretty hard to get a fully classified network going. The one we have for embassies is called RESIAD, basically a VPN proxy over internet, and secure networks go on top of that same link with additional encryption devices ( link). It's an added step of difficulty for users (which does not excuse mistakes). Executives are not really well versed in classification markings, and we have to remind them every day to use different networks for different levels of information. If I have to do that in the military, imagine in the civilian world... To prosecute beyond a reasonable doubt, you need to prove intent. The server itself would be slightly problematic but not a huge deal if it only contained unclass data. However as Page says, there is bound to be some spill (Page 27). There is also a huge difference legally speaking between mishandling private information (it was not in the proper place, but only allowed people had access to it), and dissemination (think an intrusion in the system) or even worse, (conscious) disclosure (via leak to media or other people). It's not really a technicality, it's that they couldn't get to the level of proving a crime beyond reasonable doubt for several reasons (no proof of dissemination, no disclosure, and no clear intent to mishandle since documents were not properly marked and only authorised recipients got them). But if you've set out from the outset to put all your emails on a private system, haven't you disseminated to that private system? And you've mishandled because you put it all on a private system? If you've set out to only use a private system, you've set out to put your emails and documents on that system. You've set out to put classified info on a private system. Though I guess if she mostly used a gov't system for classified stuff, that might change things. Yes, this is exactly the problem.
Didn't she not put all of her emails on it? Just the private ones?
Maybe I am remembering wrong but I am pretty sure not every single email HRC got went to that server.
|
On March 13 2019 06:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2019 06:06 Doodsmack wrote:On March 13 2019 05:22 Nouar wrote:On March 13 2019 05:05 Doodsmack wrote:
Tbh, Hillary's email server was abundantly shady, and if it is a crime for someone to take a classified document from their workplace to their home, it does seem to defy common sense to say that Hillary didnt commit a crime. She would have to get off on a technicality (i.e., the law that is in place did not anticipate someone using a private server). If you read my post carefully, and Page's testimony, you will see that the classified email chains that were on that server were not necessarily properly marked, and not necessarily in Clinton's inbox. It's also pretty hard for diplomatic networks to handle classified data since they come from all around the world, in places where it's pretty hard to get a fully classified network going. The one we have for embassies is called RESIAD, basically a VPN proxy over internet, and secure networks go on top of that same link with additional encryption devices ( link). It's an added step of difficulty for users (which does not excuse mistakes). Executives are not really well versed in classification markings, and we have to remind them every day to use different networks for different levels of information. If I have to do that in the military, imagine in the civilian world... To prosecute beyond a reasonable doubt, you need to prove intent. The server itself would be slightly problematic but not a huge deal if it only contained unclass data. However as Page says, there is bound to be some spill (Page 27). There is also a huge difference legally speaking between mishandling private information (it was not in the proper place, but only allowed people had access to it), and dissemination (think an intrusion in the system) or even worse, (conscious) disclosure (via leak to media or other people). It's not really a technicality, it's that they couldn't get to the level of proving a crime beyond reasonable doubt for several reasons (no proof of dissemination, no disclosure, and no clear intent to mishandle since documents were not properly marked and only authorised recipients got them). But if you've set out from the outset to put all your emails on a private system, haven't you disseminated to that private system? And you've mishandled because you put it all on a private system? If you've set out to only use a private system, you've set out to put your emails and documents on that system. You've set out to put classified info on a private system. Though I guess if she mostly used a gov't system for classified stuff, that might change things. Yes, this is exactly the problem.
No it is not, since *all* your emails are not set to be on a private system. Do you really believe that only 17 or so email chains in X years of Secretary of State would be classified ? It is pretty clear it was supposed to deal with non-classified info, but there was some spill due to classified information not properly marked.
An example of dissemination (please google terms, especially since I explained them in the previous post) :
§ 2400.28 Dissemination of classified information.
Heads of OSTP offices shall establish procedures consistent with this Regulation for dissemination of classified material. The originating official may prescribe specific restrictions on dissemination of classified information when necessary.
(a) Classified information shall not be disseminated outside the executive branch except under conditions that ensure that the information will be given protection equivalent to that afforded within the executive branch.
(b) Except as provided by directives issued by the President through the National Security Council, classified information originating in one agency may not be disseminated outside any other agency to which it has been made available without the consent of the originating agency. For purposes of this Section, the Department of Defense shall be considered one agency.
Was classified info transmitted outside of the Secretary of State ? No. All recipients were authorised to receive the information. However it was not placed at the correct location, thus it was mishandled. Again, mishandling information is usually dealt with via administrative sanctions, not legal proceedings, unless there was a clear intent to mishandle it (in order to reach an unlawful goal). They didn't manage to prove that.
On March 13 2019 06:09 xDaunt wrote:
On Page 25 of the Day 2 transcript, Page said it was the DOJ’s decision — the Obama DOJ’s decision — not to put the email server case in front of a grand jury. Oof.
Well, yes, since you can't put a case for indictment in front of a grand jury when you don't believe you can prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The fact that it was the Obama DOJ is normal since this was 2016. Now, prove to me that they could prove a criminal case beyond doubt, with intent to mishandle or disseminate information, and I will be all against that decision since it means they would have withheld information. However, from what I read in the FBI files, the Page docs, and the Horowitz report, I, for now, agree with that decision.
|
On March 13 2019 06:09 xDaunt wrote:
On Page 25 of the Day 2 transcript, Page said it was the DOJ’s decision — the Obama DOJ’s decision — not to put the email server case in front of a grand jury. Oof.
Is there someone else who should have made the decision?
|
On March 13 2019 06:13 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2019 06:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 13 2019 06:06 Doodsmack wrote:On March 13 2019 05:22 Nouar wrote:On March 13 2019 05:05 Doodsmack wrote:
Tbh, Hillary's email server was abundantly shady, and if it is a crime for someone to take a classified document from their workplace to their home, it does seem to defy common sense to say that Hillary didnt commit a crime. She would have to get off on a technicality (i.e., the law that is in place did not anticipate someone using a private server). If you read my post carefully, and Page's testimony, you will see that the classified email chains that were on that server were not necessarily properly marked, and not necessarily in Clinton's inbox. It's also pretty hard for diplomatic networks to handle classified data since they come from all around the world, in places where it's pretty hard to get a fully classified network going. The one we have for embassies is called RESIAD, basically a VPN proxy over internet, and secure networks go on top of that same link with additional encryption devices ( link). It's an added step of difficulty for users (which does not excuse mistakes). Executives are not really well versed in classification markings, and we have to remind them every day to use different networks for different levels of information. If I have to do that in the military, imagine in the civilian world... To prosecute beyond a reasonable doubt, you need to prove intent. The server itself would be slightly problematic but not a huge deal if it only contained unclass data. However as Page says, there is bound to be some spill (Page 27). There is also a huge difference legally speaking between mishandling private information (it was not in the proper place, but only allowed people had access to it), and dissemination (think an intrusion in the system) or even worse, (conscious) disclosure (via leak to media or other people). It's not really a technicality, it's that they couldn't get to the level of proving a crime beyond reasonable doubt for several reasons (no proof of dissemination, no disclosure, and no clear intent to mishandle since documents were not properly marked and only authorised recipients got them). But if you've set out from the outset to put all your emails on a private system, haven't you disseminated to that private system? And you've mishandled because you put it all on a private system? If you've set out to only use a private system, you've set out to put your emails and documents on that system. You've set out to put classified info on a private system. Though I guess if she mostly used a gov't system for classified stuff, that might change things. Yes, this is exactly the problem. Didn't she not put all of her emails on it? Just the private ones? Maybe I am remembering wrong but I am pretty sure not every single email HRC got went to that server.
The email address that she was using for work (at least one of them) was on that server. She even communicated with Obama in an official capacity using that email address. This is one of the reasons why I’m sure that Obama’s DOJ wanted this to go away. The problem is that James Baker has already testified that he thought Hillary should have been indicted.
|
On March 13 2019 06:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2019 06:13 IyMoon wrote:On March 13 2019 06:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 13 2019 06:06 Doodsmack wrote:On March 13 2019 05:22 Nouar wrote:On March 13 2019 05:05 Doodsmack wrote:
Tbh, Hillary's email server was abundantly shady, and if it is a crime for someone to take a classified document from their workplace to their home, it does seem to defy common sense to say that Hillary didnt commit a crime. She would have to get off on a technicality (i.e., the law that is in place did not anticipate someone using a private server). If you read my post carefully, and Page's testimony, you will see that the classified email chains that were on that server were not necessarily properly marked, and not necessarily in Clinton's inbox. It's also pretty hard for diplomatic networks to handle classified data since they come from all around the world, in places where it's pretty hard to get a fully classified network going. The one we have for embassies is called RESIAD, basically a VPN proxy over internet, and secure networks go on top of that same link with additional encryption devices ( link). It's an added step of difficulty for users (which does not excuse mistakes). Executives are not really well versed in classification markings, and we have to remind them every day to use different networks for different levels of information. If I have to do that in the military, imagine in the civilian world... To prosecute beyond a reasonable doubt, you need to prove intent. The server itself would be slightly problematic but not a huge deal if it only contained unclass data. However as Page says, there is bound to be some spill (Page 27). There is also a huge difference legally speaking between mishandling private information (it was not in the proper place, but only allowed people had access to it), and dissemination (think an intrusion in the system) or even worse, (conscious) disclosure (via leak to media or other people). It's not really a technicality, it's that they couldn't get to the level of proving a crime beyond reasonable doubt for several reasons (no proof of dissemination, no disclosure, and no clear intent to mishandle since documents were not properly marked and only authorised recipients got them). But if you've set out from the outset to put all your emails on a private system, haven't you disseminated to that private system? And you've mishandled because you put it all on a private system? If you've set out to only use a private system, you've set out to put your emails and documents on that system. You've set out to put classified info on a private system. Though I guess if she mostly used a gov't system for classified stuff, that might change things. Yes, this is exactly the problem. Didn't she not put all of her emails on it? Just the private ones? Maybe I am remembering wrong but I am pretty sure not every single email HRC got went to that server. The email address that she was using for work (at least one of them) was on that server. She even communicated with Obama in an official capacity using that email address. This is one of the reasons why I’m sure that Obama’s DOJ wanted this to go away. The problem is that James Baker has already testified that he thought Hillary should have been indicted.
Using for *unclassified* work. Page testified, and I can tell you for a fact, that there are several completely separate networks for different classifications.
There were even memos asking personnel to please not use personal emails for work business (should have been much harsher, from my IT security point of view...). The simple fact of using one is a mistake, but not a crime. Even communicating with the president on it is very bad practice, but as long as it's unclass, it's not a big deal (legally speaking).
The classified emails on it, though...
James Baker testimony :
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/430881-fbis-top-lawyer-believed-hillary-clinton-should-face-charges-but-was
“So, I had that belief initially after reviewing, you know, a large binder of her emails that had classified information in them,” he said. “And I discussed it internally with a number of different folks, and eventually became persuaded that charging her was not appropriate because we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — we, the government, could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — she had the intent necessary to violate (the law).”
Baker said that if he had been more convinced there was evidence that Clinton intended to violate the law, “I would have argued that vociferously with him [Comey] and maybe changed his view.”
we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — we, the government, could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — she had the intent necessary to violate (the law)
So no, he does NOT say she should have been indicted.
I don't really see why the average joe that brings his USB key with classified docs at home by mistake, or someone that leaves a secret document on his desk, or someone that mistakenly sends a classified document to an unclassified address (to an authorised recipient) would only get administrative sanctions, but HRC, would be treated differently, "just because".
That guy sending pictures of classified portions of a nuclear submarine to his family and friends, that Trump pardoned "because HRC" though, was clear, wilfull disclosure of classified information.
|
On March 13 2019 06:09 xDaunt wrote:
On Page 25 of the Day 2 transcript, Page said it was the DOJ’s decision — the Obama DOJ’s decision — not to put the email server case in front of a grand jury. Oof.
Mmh. A department being allowed to do their work.
Not something that happens under the current administration.
|
The Obama DOJ and the Obama FBI, both that were filled with live time civil servants, many who are Republicans. But they are guilty of the ultimate sin: Not bringing a criminal case against the a Clinton. Something Republicans have been trying to do since Clinton won the election in the 1990s. It is the Holy Grail of the Republican Congress, to finally bring a criminal action against a Clinton.
Previously they would have wanted a guilty verdict too, but they have had to adjust their expectations.
On March 13 2019 06:27 Nouar wrote:
I don't really see why the average joe that brings his USB key with classified docs at home by mistake, or someone that leaves a secret document on his desk, or someone that mistakenly sends a classified document to an unclassified address (to an authorised recipient) would only get administrative sanctions, but HRC, would be treated differently, "just because".
That guy sending pictures of classified portions of a nuclear submarine to his family and friends, that Trump pardoned "because HRC" though, was clear, wilfull disclosure of classified information.
This is critical. The ways the Republicans talk about the Clinton emails, you would think she was the Klaus Fuchs stealing the plans for the bomb. But the reality is the worst that could happen is a slap on the wrist. And that assumes the DOJ would prevail in whatever dumb ass case they would bring. It was far more important to accuse Clinton of wrong doing than to bring a case.
|
Baker's testimony is that he was "talked out of it" -- presumably by the DOJ. This is consistent with Page's testimony about DOJ interference. It should be self-evident why that's problematic.
|
Are we sure it wasn't a colleague who told him the case sucked and he would likely lose? Because all assessments of the case seem weak and the DOJ's long standing assessment of the "Gross Negligence" seems to be that it doesn't pass constitutional muster as a criminal charge.
|
I'd love to know exactly how these various officials concluded that "gross negligence" could be unconstitutionally vague given that it is a common legal term of art. And I'm also very curious as to why all of these law enforcement officials are bending over backwards to conduct this analysis in the first place. Who gave those marching orders?
|
Pretty sure they applied all the years of law school and time working cases in the DOJ. It’s not like the attorneys in the DOJ are paper tigers.
I doubt there were marching orders. Pretty sure it amounted to “this statute is trash, we need to never use it.”
|
On March 13 2019 07:24 xDaunt wrote:
I'd love to know exactly how these various officials concluded that "gross negligence" could be unconstitutionally vague given that it is a common legal term of art. And I'm also very curious as to why all of these law enforcement officials are bending over backwards to conduct this analysis in the first place. Who gave those marching orders?
You might find some information in this : https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/
It goes back a long time in the history of the law, saying that it's not the "gross negligence" part of it the issue, rather the "relating to national defence" being too vague if intent is not proved (from 1941, so don't accuse marching orders from the Obama DOJ, or even the famous Deep State :-) ). Page asserts on page 36/37 that there has been 1 time in 99 years where this specific article was used against someone. No more, since it looks like it has been DOJ policy for a long time not to use it.
Then again, I'm not an expert on US law. Just paraphrasing the article above and the testimony here.
The conclusion is in accordance with what I said a lot of times : mishandling classified information is not a criminal offense and is usually dealt with by administrative sanctions (except if you're a military personnel).
Dissemination with intent and disclosure of course are (even mishandling with intent is, it seems, which is not the case here).
Members of the U.S. military have been charged with the negligent mishandling of classified material, but not under 793(f). Criminal charges in military court are brought under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the Espionage Act (although violations of the Espionage Act can be charged under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in military court). The military has extensive regulations that govern the handling of classified material and the failure to follow these regulations is a criminal offense. Negligence can result in a conviction under Article 92 because the test is whether the service member “knew or should have known” they were violating the regulation. But these rules do not apply to any civilian personnel at the State Department and can only be applied to DoD civilians in very limited circumstances.
Despite what may appear to be the plain meaning of 793(f), the negligent mishandling of classified material is not a civilian criminal offense. A civilian can face many consequences for negligently mishandling classified material, including the loss of their clearance and probably with it their employment, but they would not face criminal charges. For anyone who thinks negligence should be a crime their argument is not with Director Comey but with Justice Reed, the author of the Gorin opinion. Because of that decision, the correct standard is intent, not gross negligence, and the director was right not to recommend a criminal case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
