Is this the email that ends Hillary's career?

[jfern]

[GreydeeThos]

1. Nope

[stonecutter357]

2. no

[Onlooker]

3. You should work for the NSA if you're so concerned about protecting government secrets n/t

[RiverLover]

4. It shows intent.

It's not good.

I hadn't seen that or heard of it. Thanks for posting.

[Recursion]

17. Does it?

What's she talking about? If it's a classified document, the protocols for sending it through a non-secure channel are kind of strict, but they do exist. Is there a missing part of this that says the document was classified, or those protocols weren't followed?

[RiverLover]

18. Good Qs. I guess we'll find out if the FBI brings charges.

What Pagliano says regarding why they scrubbed 30000 emails may be all they need to indict though, so maybe we'll never know.

[Tanuki]

5. Link please?

[jfern]

8. You can search for it here

http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/

[Tanuki]

19. Ah, I get it. You would prefer not to show where you found your yellow-highlighted graphic.

[RiverLover]

21. I right-clicked the pic and I think it's from the wall street journal

Leaving off first letter so it won't show as a pic~

ttp://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-MA658_Clinto_E_20160110170028.jpg

[morningfog]

39. You're taking issue with he highlight? Lame.

.

[Logical]

40. Lazy much? Or tech challanged? Both? Nt

[Tanuki]

43. There's a third option: I am so fed up with material from right wing sources showing

up every day on DU that I am skeptical when things like this show up without reference. I didn't accuse the OP of this when I asked for a link, but did want to see where it came from, yellow highlighting and all. I remain curious.

[jfern]

46. It's from the WSJ

While it has a right-wing bias, it should be an acceptable source for this.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. That is just a better indexed version of this

https://foia.state.gov/search/search.aspx

You can search it there too

[riversedge]

6. Only in your bubble dreams.

[oasis]

7. No. Keep fishing.

[sufrommich]

9. Some Sanders supporters are going to be just as

disappointed as republicans when this republican generated fake scandal peter's out. Too bad.

[Vote2016]

10. I think the email where Hillary tells Chelsea a different story about Benghazi than the WH & State

Department were telling the public is worse, but I don't think either email is all that bad (not half as damaging as the Bosnian sniper fire lie, for example - Brian Williams got fired for less than Hillary's Bosnian sniper fire lie).

[Recursion]

11. Why would it?

She's saying if you can't send a secure fax send it nonsecurely.

Is that a career-ending request?

[unc70]

15. It would be a problem for most people

Career ending? Hard to say, but would usually have repercussions for those involved.

[Recursion]

16. Would it?

Was the thing she was asking to be sent a classified document in the first place?

And if it was, were they following the protocols for sending classified through an unsecure channel?

I don't know the answer to either one, but you seem to be assuming those.

[unc70]

22. Implied by attempted use of secure fax

And by the need to remove the header information before sending via email. That strongly suggests that the document was classified and that the email system in question was not secure.

It is important to know the nature of the document and the identity of the recepient.

[Recursion]

23. No. If you're in the classified section you want to use secure systems whenever possible

even to send unclassified material. Because you have to get up, sign out, and leave the enclosure to do that.

It is important to know the nature of the document and the identity of the recepient.

Agreed there. I'd really like this to lead to the Government's re-examining its hopelessly outdated and byzantine classification system, but I'm not holding my breath.

[unc70]

36. This may be nothing

I was about to post that this was discussed two months ago. But I see post #33 has already done that. It looks like Clinton herself was the supposed recepient and that that the document could have been just SBU or SBU/NOFORN. As I said initially, it would take a lot more than just this to be a real problem.

[Recursion]

38. Agreed, and the extent to which stuff is SBU/NOFORN is absolutely absurd, for that matter.

I'm the husband of a diplomat and our weekly dependent newsletter is SBU (because why? Nobody can say) so if we want to read it we have to show up and read in just as if it were classified.

Even worse: there was a social (non-official) party we were holding with other English-speaking countries' diplomatic corps, and the invitations were cleared... as NOFORN.

The whole system needs to be reworked.

[unc70]

44. That really is absurd

That beats any examples I have. I have had published books (ISBN number available in bookstores) from my company be classified at a level where we could not discuss them. It made it difficult to provide our products and services under those restrictions. We finally resolved that, but we still have layers of security between us and the actual users.

In the old days, we had software subject to strict export controls, but if we printed the source code, exported that, and scanned it back in, it was not controlled and could be exported under an unrestricted general license.

There was a case with a NATO partner where there were strict rules and tariffs if you used 9-track magnetic tape, none if you used DAT tapes.

[Recursion]

45. Yep. And in the Marines, I had interview quotes that I wrote down freehand in a notebook

In the notebook, they were unclassified, not even NOFORN now that I think of it, but the second I typed them up into the battalion laptop, they were S or occasionally TS (at which point I had to leave the room for somebody else to press "save&quot .

Seriously, we can do better.

[Hoyt]

12. I get this kind of junk is Sanders best way forward, but jeeez it's tiring.

[NCTraveler]

13. I'll print it out and put it under my pillow tonight.

I just know if I wish hard enough....

[vdogg]

31. ....

[unc70]

14. Probably not on its own, ...

That email on its own is far from enough, but it might cause her problems if there is a larger pattern. It does seem to support the narrative that secure documents were sometimes deliberately sent through non secure email. How serious this is will depend on the document involved.

ETA It would also depend on whether the document itself was sent by secure email and if its content were sent over non secure email.

[Yuugal]

20. Are we still supposed to believe the "cloth wiping"?

She knows enough to send it as unmarked email with no header and that the mail would be non-secure but we are supposed to believe all she knows about "wiping" is with a cloth?

[HereSince1628]

24. Sometimes it's the little essential details that reveal existence of entire enterprises.

But, from the public's point of view, it's impossible to know what that email really reveals in a forensic sense.

[randome]

25. Come on, everyone! Let's all try our darndest!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[BreakfastClub]

26. No, sorry. You have it wrong. There is nothing illegal about

sending non-paper via unsecured fax as long as the fax doesn't contain identifying marks and isn't classified. There's no evidence that the fax she wanted sent was classified. Non-classified can be sent through secure fax as long as the id marks are removed. It seems like that would be easy enough to look up. I guess you didn't bother, or perhaps you only checked right wing sites. By the way, there was never any fax sent unclassified that day and it has been thoroughly researched. The GOP is just making things up again. They've been doing that to Hillary for well over 20 years.

Hillary isn't a stupid woman. She knows how the right wing works and the fake attacks they launch. It wouldn't be hard for her to imagine that they would try to get her emails from her time as SoS. Do you really think she was engaged in sending classified material on an unsecure line? Give me a break. She wouldn't have broken the law like that. It's just stupid, and as I said, she is not a stupid woman... And for what reason would she do such a thing anyway? Is she just evil in your mind? Good God.

These emails are nothing. Zero. Nada. Nothing there. You're wasting your time believing right wing attacks on Hillary. it's all bullshit. She won't be indicted and she did nothing wrong. Bet on it. After she is not indicted, the GOP will claim she got favoritism and "got away" with it. Don't believe them. They've been saying this nonsense every single time another one of their accusations gets shut down. You're being fooled by them. It's sad.

[RiverLover]

29. Yeah, because everyone who pleads the 5th then is offered immunity on their testimony

re: the primary person of interest shows the primary person they're investigating did nothing wrong.

That's a bet I'll pass on. But thanks.

Significantly, Clinton deleted about 30,000 emails that she says were "personal" in nature before handing it over to the FBI, which has been looking into whether Clinton or her aides mishandled classified material by using a private email account.

Around the time she handed over the server, a House committee requested access to it to ensure that she had not deleted any work-related emails. But her lawyer, David Kendall, told the committee that Clinton aides had changed the server's settings so that only emails she sent and received in the previous 60 days would be saved.

Investigators also are attempting to find out whether any sensitive information was stored on the server after it was handed it over from Pagliano's oversight to Platte River, which is "not cleared" to have access to classified material.

In August, Platte River's attorney said the server was "blank" when it was transferred to federal agents, but did not clarify how that process took place. Now that he has been granted immunity, Pagliano may be more willing to explain the rationale behind wiping the server clean.

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-bryan-pagliano-2016-3

[demwing]

42. So why is the FBI investigating?

Did they get "fooled" as well?

[Merryland]

27. yes, that's the smoking gun.

It shows that she's authorizing putting a sensitive document onto a less-secure server.

[JaneyVee]

28. No.

[peacebird]

30. She's been very careful to say there was nothing "marked" classified, so I'ld say this shows intent

I thought it was THE email when I first saw it a couple weeks ago. If they have the emails that came before and after this one, and it shows that her staff were stupid enough to do what her email says to do, then... At the very least she has staffers who get charged.

[randome]

32. The original question was, "How many drinks has John Boehner had this morning?"

"Is he tipsy, drunk or shit-faced?"
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[timlot]

33. Nope, she already talked about it...

January 10, 2016, 11:27 am
Clinton defends telling aide to send data through 'nonsecure' channel

Hillary Clinton on Sunday defended instructing an aide to send information to her through a “nonsecure” channel, saying the data she requested was not classified and accusing her presidential rivals of seeking to score political points over a non-issue.

The State Department released more than 3,000 of Clinton’s emails from her time as secretary of State on Friday. One of the emails has drawn scrutiny because in it, Clinton, who was awaiting a secure fax detailing talking points, instructed an adviser to turn the talking points into “nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure” because the fax wasn’t coming through.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has called the email "disturbing,” but Clinton on Sunday defended her actions and said the talking points were “never sent” in a non-secure fashion.
“This is another instance where what is common practice — I need information, I had some points I had to make and I was waiting for a secure fax that could give me the whole picture, but oftentimes there is a lot of information that isn’t at all classified,” Clinton said Sunday on "Face the Nation." “So whatever information can be appropriately transmitted unclassified often was. That’s true for every agency in the government and everybody that does business with the government.”

In the email marked June 17, 2011, Clinton told aide Jake Sullivan that she hadn’t yet received a set of talking points.

“They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax,” Sullivan says. “They’re working on it.”

Responded Clinton: “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”

The State Department release does not make clear what the contents of the email were or whether the information was classified. Clinton contends that she trusted Sullivan to respond appropriately.

“The important point here is that I had great confidence because I worked with Jake Sullivan for years,” Clinton said. “He is the most meticulous, careful person you could possibly do business with, and he knew exactly what was and wasn’t appropriate.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/265367-clinton-defends-telling-aid-to-send-data-through-nonsecure-channel

[RiverLover]

34. "The State Department release does not make clear what the contents of the email were or whether the

information was classified."

[Darb]

35. SHARK JUMP!!!!!!!!

A thing of beauty right there.

[bigwillq]

37. Unlikely (nt)

[gollygee]

41. Nothing is going to end her career except retirement. N/t