She is lying, er, uh, "relating a non-operative account." When I worked at the State Department I had a personal email account with AOL and two official ones with State. I was issued an official Blackberry for when I was traveling. That Blackberry was hooked up to my unclassified State.gov email account. I also had a special log-in procedure that would get me onto that State.gov account from any internet-linked desktop or laptop computer in the world. No problem. We had very clear instructions on what was to go on our State.gov account and what we could put on our personal email account. The unclassified system at State had internet access; I could, therefore, access my private AOL account via the internet using the State computer. As noted, I could, using the special log-in procedure, gain access to my State.gov account from any internet-linked computer device in the world. The Blackberry was not authorized for use on the classified State account or for sending classified material of any sort.
This is not rocket science. The rules were very clear; we all understood them. The State email systems and the State-owned computer devices were subject to monitoring, and all communications formed part of the official record; we got told that right up front. In fact, every time the computer would come on, we would get a warning notice that we had no expectation of privacy and that the system could be monitored.
So we had this elaborate monitoring system run by State Security and nobody, nobody, nobody-- Bueller? Bueller?--noticed that the head honcho was not complying? Her stuff was off the books? This is simply outrageous. I find it hard to believe--impossible to believe--that no classified material was passed to or from the Secretary on her private email account. She is lying, and lying big time. In addition, I find humorous her claim that she subsequently and "voluntarily" has turned over to the Department some 55,000 printed pages--pages, mind you, not emails--and that should satisfy any quest for info. She refuses to make available her private server claiming that her private stuff is on there, at the same time that she claims that she has deleted her private stuff. Liar! Liar! Pantsuit on fire . . .
Just as Al Capone got nailed for tax evasion, it would be supremely satisfying to see this lying, arrogant, inept, and crooked political hack go down for violations of email regs. Justice couldn't get her on Whitewater, her "creative" fund-raising, or for being an incompetent and destructive SecState, but maybe it will get her on this.
I am disgusted.
As I often do when I get disgusted by the political scene, I turn to the best things on earth: my dogs. We have been taking them to advanced training, and they are actually learning and having fun.
Here they sit, eagerly awaiting the start of class . . .
Here, catching a few winks in the man-cave after a long day at school . . .
If only everything were as wonderful as dogs . . .
Amen, and amen on that, Mad. 'Course, she can just exclaim "at this point, what does it matter" They're deleted, familiarly, "dead, dead, dead", and that's that!
ReplyDeleteAnd on the other hand, she could declaim the same, because the contents are archived in entirety on China's and G-d knows who else's servers as well as the now ultimate backup, our own nsa, according to more than Snowden, nowadays.
Ha, and they're probably better than watching porn all day.
Damn nice analysis though, probably worked back then, now, who knows? I sure wouldn't want to put anything on the system that could get anyone killed or actually tortured.
I know that these days, nothing life sensitive is on any system, back to paper, long time now.
Your two friends are gorgeous, and look sharp, even after a hard day's night!
Jack
DoD Email and systems work pretty much the same way. She is lying through her teeth.
ReplyDeleteFound it interesting that just before her attempted Jedi Mind Trick (these are not the emails you are looking for) a Bill Clinton spokeshead came out with a Statement saying Billy has used E-Mail twice in his life; once to John Glenn and once to the military in general. Both times back when he was POTUS.
30 minutes later She Who Must Be Next claimed the majority of emails were personal, specifically between her and Bill.
1 of the 2 is lying; though I suspect both. Hillary about emails to Bill and Bill about only 2 emails. I imagine Bill has plenty of secret accounts to various lady friends.
I found BC's spokesit's statement rather curious. Why would he cut her off when he could have simply kept his mouth shut?
DeleteMaybe he is as fed up with her as we are!
DeleteWe also need to shine a spotlight on those at State who apparently had no qualms about sending emails to HRC's non-State.Gov account. Even if none of these were "classified" (which strains credulity) they must have included SBU material. And any JO knows that is is absolutely forbidden to send Sensitive But Unclassified material to a non-State.Gov account. Why did no one object? Perhaps BuzzFeed has the answer:
ReplyDelete“There was a distrust of the inevitability of leaks, a distrust of people being loose with email, a distrust of FOIAs,” the current official said, adding that that mistrust seemed misplaced because at the State Department “even people who were deeply disappointed with Syria and Ukraine policy are pretty sympathetic to the Democrats and have a lot of loyalty.” http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/emails-show-divide-between-clinton-insiders-and-state-depart#.uc0PmG3M8. Shameful.
Great dogs!
ReplyDeleteIt is a sad testimony to the degradation of standards in public life that Hillary will get away with this.
A wholesale cleanout is required.
I am disgusted - for us in beleaguered Occupied Europe, the USA is a beacon of freedom and hope as it has been since the decline of Blighty under the damn' socialists.
N ow you have your own damn' socialist and in 8 years (aided and abetted it must be said by his big government predecessor) he has brought your wonderful country down, not to our level ( some way to go yet) but even so...
A truly sad, tragic, situation.
Great dogs indeed Bloke in Italy!. I am another BOI (Venezia). Dove sei in Italia?
DeleteCiao anon, sono a Lucca. Da quanto sei in Italia?
DeleteOtto anni - di tanto in tanto. Retired
DeleteLovely dogs Bob, just like my four. Here's a link you may care to click:
ReplyDeletehttp://pickeringpost.com/story/hillary-s-last-post/4630
just to show that Clinton duplicity reaches a far & wide audience. btw Larry Pickering is like Tim Blair's big brother and as it is his own website he says things that Tim cannot, constrained as he is by his parent newspaper. Larry's site is constantly under cyber attack but he manages to fight through. Cheers
Hillary will never be punished in this lifetime. I have watched her for many long years, as have you. The heights to which she has developed audacity is really remarkable, don't you think.
ReplyDeleteCongress is impotent in total. And they cannot touch anything because the power is in the hands of deceivers. We are toast. And even if Hillary is knocked out of the way, what's to keep O from staying in power?
They folks bluff their way through and no one can stop them.
But, some of us look forward to what they will get in eternity....especially her, for she not only allowed brave men to died....she ordered no one help them.
That alone should cause suffering for all eternity.
Carry on...and those dogs are absolutely gorgeous.....you need to take them to a good ranch in Texas and allow them a good run chasing deer, don't you think?
E. Texas Rancher
Great dogs indeed! if only people could be as loyal and moral as dogs. I have concluded that our old republic is gone forever, we are in a banana republic a la Argentina.
ReplyDeleteGovernment email was just coming in as I retired, but I did several TDY stints at the Department after retirement, including four WAEs in the State Department's FOIA office. I was introduced to State's classified email system at that time and thought its security was overkill. Just the login function was harder than any other email system I had ever used, and it was impossible to send/receive emails from personal accounts. I now realize it was not overkill and am surprised Hillary was able to do what she did with a private server. As a former FOIA worker bee, I would love to be tasked with the review of her email records for possible release. I am confident a lot of her 53,000 "private" emails would not qualify for exemption from the FOIA.
ReplyDeleteBad Kerry
ReplyDelete“With respect to the talks, we’ve been clear from the beginning. We’re not negotiating a ‘legally binding’ plan ...
So what is he negotiating? An illegally binding agreement?
All treaties can be broken at the convenience of either party, Treaty of Vienna not withstanding. There is no such thing as international law. But Kerry is playing a duplicitous and naïve game here.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/03/11/kerry-us-not-negotiating-legally-binding-iran-deal/
Everyone with access to government computer systems is required to complete annual training including records management, opsec, handling of classified materials, etc. They are also required to sign an end user agreement prior to gaining access to the computer system. I wonder if Mrs. Clinton complied with any of those requirements? If yes, there's a paper trail documenting that agreement to follow the rules she broke. If she didn't, it's more proof of her stance that the rules don't apply to her. I hope some IG folks are digging into that angle.
ReplyDeleteExcellent points.
DeleteI'd suggest training the dogs to bite Hillary, but it would be too cruel.
ReplyDeleteTo the dogs, of course.
What great dogs! They look like they'd be very fun antidotes to the current insanity.
ReplyDeleteAfter spending the 90s thinking that one scandal after another was going to be the one that finally sank the Clintons, I've given up hope on that score. I greatly fear the GOP will overplay their hand, Hillary will play the feminist victim card, and just like that we'll be back to the phony War on Women.
I'd be interested to read your take on the GOP letter to Iran. I'm sympathetic to their reasons for writing it, but it seems like a bad road to go down.
Because everyone else seems to be talking about public records laws, I am glad to see this group talking about national security issues related to Hilary Clinton's email server. Kudos Diplomad!
ReplyDeleteBased on news reports describing how the server itself was set up and maintained we know that it was NOT secure. It was, in effect, a communications portal "transmitting in the clear" for the entirety of Clinton's tenure as SecState. We must assume that every molecule of data that ever transited the server's motherboard also scurried off to Russia, China, Iran, etc.
The full significance of this may not be immediately obvious. But consider what intelligence analysts could glean, even if the content of every email were perfectly "vanilla."
For starters, they could assemble an email address book with associated human names, all correlated with personal information about the humans themselves. Every email addy would be a new intelligence target for sniffing, spoofing, phishing, or malware. Some of the collected email addresses would be for accounts previously unknown (even, perhaps within the dot-gov/dot-mil domains), and purposefully unpublished.
Even without SBU or classified data the Clinton server would produce a bonanza of useful information.
If anyone has the time it would be interesting to correlate published accounts of cyberattacks against the U.S. government with the timing of Clinton's email server set up in 2009. There was a massive cyberattack in 2010, as I recall, but I haven't researched it.
Other people -- Huma Abedin, in particular -- are reported to have had email accounts on Clinton's server. This, clearly, adds another dimension to the issue of public records laws violations, but adds multiple new dimensions to the national security question.
Regards,
Anonymouse
An another thing...
ReplyDeleteThe irony is: Hillary Clinton violated Executive Order 12958 Classified National Security Information, which her husband issued in 1995.
Although amended twice (by EO 13292, Bush; by EO 13526, Obama), the original substance of EO 12958 remains in effect. It was intended to encourage the declassifying of national security information because, "Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government."
Regards,
Anonymouse