Hillary on the State Department email Thing

[Octafish]

Sec. Clinton was asked about this in Michigan's Town Hall, the one she said she originally wasn't going to attend before finding out it would be broadcast over FOX anyway and then found she could find time to attend Town Hall:

BAIER: At the time you and your staff deleted nearly 32,000 emails, about half of the total volume, were you aware that the server was going to be sought as evidence by federal authorities?

CLINTON: No, but let me clarify this, because, you know, there's much misinformation going on around here. And let me just start with the basic facts. I have said it wasn't the best choice to use a personal email. It was a mistake. However, I am not alone in that. Many people in the government, past and current, have on occasion or as a practice done the same.

Nothing I sent was marked classified or that I received was marked classified. And specifically, with respect to your question, every government official, and this is a legal theory -- not just a theory, it's a legal rule, gets to choose what is personal and what is it official. What we turned over were more than 30,000 emails that I assumed were already in the government system, Bret, because they were sent to state.gov addresses.

BAIER: Sure, but there were some that were just recently discovered and turned over...

CLINTON: No, that was in the State Department, not in me. I've turned over everything.

BAIER: Let me just clarify, the State Department has redacted and declared 2,101 of your work emails classified, at least at the confidential level, 44 classified as secret, 22 classified as top secret. So you said at a March press conference in 2015: ``I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.'' So can we say definitively that that statement is not accurate?

CLINTON: No, you can't. Here's what happened, the State Department has a process for determining what is or isn't classified. If they determine it is, they mark it as classified.

BAIER: Well, who decides...

CLINTON: The State Department decides.

BAIER: But what about you when you're typing an email?

CLINTON: No, the State Department decides what is -- and let me go a step further here, I will reiterate, because it's a fact, nothing I sent or received was marked classified. Now, what happens when you ask or when you are asked to make information public is that it's reviewed and different agencies come in with their opinions.

As you know, just recently, Colin Powell's emails were retroactively classified from more than 10 years ago. As he said, that was an absurdity. I could not agree more.

BAIER: So your contention now is the 2,101 emails contained information that shouldn't be classified at any time, they should be -- now or then, you're just saying it shouldn't have been classified?

CLINTON: Well, what I'm saying is, it wasn't at the time. Now if you -- let's take Mary Smith who has some information in the government. And she is FOIAed, Freedom of Information Act, give us your information, your memos, your emails, whatever it might have been. That then goes through a process. So even though the agency she works in has none of this is classified, others start to have a chance to weigh-in.

So others might say, you know, that wasn't at the time, but now with circumstances, we don't want to release it, so, therefore, we have to classify it.

I've asked, and I echo Colin Powell in this, release it, and once the American people see it, they will know how absurd this is. So Colin Powell and I are exactly on the same page.

SOURCE: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/07/transcript-fox-news-democratic-presidential-town-hall.html

A very nuanced answer, to be charitable.

[hollysmom]

1. I have to say that at work and at home I delete e-mail each and every day

other wise you lose control, either save it in the proper folder or delete it, the inbox should be empty when you leave.
OK, I can't always do that, that is why I hate spam with a passion. I do sometimes delete what I want to save, but I have a bunch of e-mail accounts that are abandoned to spam and I move on to another ID. What I really hate is reaching a maximum of blocked addresses. that is when I leave the ID.

[thereismore]

3. You would proceed differently if you were SoS. I am sure you would keep State affairs separate from

your personal. I am sure you would not type something about clandestine operations on your gmail.com private email. That's essentially what she did when she did not use the .gov address. What she did is more than just a mistake.

[hollysmom]

6. In business, I still got spam and I deleted it all the time, I hate it with such a passion.

I do understand your point and it has been 10 years since I had a real job, times change.

I like to keep work from encroaching on my personal life so I refused to let them give me software that would allow me to access business e-mail on my home computer, I told them they either give me a computer to use for business alone, but I would not put their software on my personal computer. They never gave me one and I never received come in early for a morning meeting the night before, never had to check work e-mail at home. Missed some meetings, but it didn't matter, they laid off the entire department anyway.

[liberal_at_heart]

2. Any average person working for a business would be fired and possibly sued for

doing what she did. My husband was a telecom engineer and had to use code words for certain projects and had to sign confidentiality documents and never ever, ever used personal email for those projects. He definitely would have been fired and probably sued if he had.

[salinsky]

4. I wouldn't call it nuanced ...

... I'd call it accurate.

This all started as ratfuckery of her campaign by the usual suspects.

The bureaucrats have been busily unnecessarily reclassifying stuff before it gets released, as bureaucrats will do.

The State Department has said she did nothing wrong.

The FBI has said she is not a target of their investigation.

This is the same GOP playbook bullshit, just like BENGHAZI!!1!!1, IRSgate, APgate, and so on and so forth ad infinitum.

You're just willing to give this one oxygen because you're a Hillary hater.

[creon]

5. There is an investigation.

And, there should be one.
The Investigation is ongoing and we shall see the result.

Personally, I doubt that she broke any laws. I think that she knows better than to do that.

Did she exercise poor judgement? Yes.

I suspect that her poor judgement was driven by distrust; and she felt that could do better with Security that the State Dept.

My view is that she does not trust systems or people. That is, she is very self protective.

Paranoia will destroy ya.

[thereismore]

7. Very Nixonian she is. We'll see what that gets her. nt

[creon]

13. Accusation is not proof

It is, simply, that - an accusation.

[salinsky]

8. There is an investigation ...

Last edited Tue Mar 8, 2016, 03:43 PM - Edit history (1)

... and the FBI has said she is not the target of that investigation.

It's a security probe.

I agree that the server was poor judgement on her part, because she is a Clinton.

And, when you are a Clinton, ratfuckery is always afoot, aided and abetted by the media.

That is the main reason I would have preferred a different candidate.

The Clintons have nurtured an antagonistic relationship with the press for decades.

So far, she has handled herself with an aplomb that I did not anticipate.

Her answer to the email question was accurate.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

11. what answer?

WHAT ANSWER?
She NEVER answered any question directly.

Oh, wait. not even 100 posts, and another hillarian spreads more manure. There is a place for you folks. They only let people like you in. I am sure you will be comfortable there.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

12. no, her ratfuckery is aided by her sense of

being able to get away with it. Kinda like gathering millions from Keystone supporters, Wall Street, Venture Capital firms and claiming it has no impact on her.

[creon]

15. With the kind of animosity

Which you exhibit, Clinton's mistrust is justified.

Your animosity toward Clinton is giving you a bellyache. I doubt that you able to give her one.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

16. I freely admit that I do not like her, don't trust her, and

am not fooled by her alleged conversion to some more liberal positions. Most of that stems from dealing with her personally, something I will not forget, nor forgive. Let me just say someone with her ethics should not ever hold public office.

[creon]

14. True

She is not a target of the investigation.
It is a security probe.
And nothing has been concluded

[amborin]

9. "the inspector general for the intelligence community has said that some of Clinton’s correspondence

contained classified material when it was sent — even if it was not labeled.....

snip

Security experts say Clinton’s private server added risk because it functioned beyond typical government safeguards. That would have been the case not only while she was in office but also for two years after she stepped down, when the emails remained in the server’s memory.

snip

Nevertheless, Ron Hosko, former head of the FBI’s criminal investigative division, said Clinton’s use of the server offered a one-stop-shop for a would-be hacker or U.S. adversary looking to scoop up the totality of the sensitive information she was receiving

.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-on-her-private-server-wrote-104-emails-the-government-says-are-classified/2016/03/05/11e2ee06-dbd6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html

[ChairmanAgnostic]

10. I did not see one direct answer to the actual question

SOP for her.