Rickendiver 6 #26 September 11, 2015 DanGI'm not defending her, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that she sent or received anything marked classified. If she did, then she should be in hella trouble, but not if her e-mails were classified later. This is not a defensible position. Please refer to my previous post on this. By operating outside of the system, she bypassed all the controls that would have marked information correctly to begin with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #27 September 11, 2015 I disagree, and apparently so did the DoS, which let her set up the system in the first place. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #28 September 11, 2015 Bolas *** What I am curious about is how was it possible for anyone to NOT question why they were sending classified information to any domain that wasn't a known agency domain. That in itself would indicate to you that you were sending to a non-govt server. What I think is the worst is that she is laying down just pure bullshit for excuses in hopes that the general non-technically knowledgeable public will believe her. Were they sending to her private mail address or did she have email forwarding turned on for her government account? If her government account was forwarding those communicating with her might not have noticed. Of course if the Government IT department configured the mail forward... Impossible, she doesn't know how to use that option. Her aide must have done it and Hil had no knowledge and doesn't recall any of it.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rickendiver 6 #29 September 11, 2015 Yes, but she WAS the DoS. No one in any Department would "let" the Secretary of that Department do anything. She was the boss and can run the Department as she chooses to- within the law. Staffers that did know about it were probably fearful of losing their jobs if they said anything. Every Department has policies in place to prevent unauthorized access to sensitive material. DoS are somewhat more lax than DoD or DoE, but not even the Secretary of a Department has the authority to violate those policies. There is no wiggle room on this. Here is a sample of a DoS classified document policy that was violated. (There are lots more) http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/89321.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #30 September 11, 2015 Again, you haven't shown that she violated any of those policies (which were just the generic ruls on classification). The existence of policies doesn't mean that policies were broken. Most goverment e-mail traffic is unclassified. In fact, if people were sending her classified information over e-mail, they are just as much to blame as she was. If an address is on the SIPRNET, you can't freely e-mail to and from it to a NIPRNET address. But I'm sure you know that. If there was classified info going to her non-classified address, then it doesn't matter if it was a private server or a government server, the law was broken either way. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreeece 2 #31 September 12, 2015 DanGI'm not defending her... Then: DanGTeach me, oh great one. Do you have a reputable source that she handled classified material on her private server? Not speculation and maybes, but actual evidence? I haven't seen any. Something a defense attorney for Hillary Clinton might say? https://youtu.be/VccqavRP6gE?t=6Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #32 September 12, 2015 Go away now, the grown-ups are talking. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreeece 2 #33 September 12, 2015 DanGGo away now, the grown-ups are talking. I think the proper term is "objection."Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #34 September 12, 2015 No, I think the proper phrase is, "Seriously, you are out of your depth, go back to misquoting scripture and posting Metallica videos." - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #35 September 12, 2015 DanGNo, I think the proper phrase is, "Seriously, you are out of your depth, go back to misquoting scripture and posting Metallica videos." It does appear that you are defending her. Just because you say you aren't, doesn't make it so, no matter how important you think your words are.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
