2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWorse By Minute: Chicago Tribune: Clinton's Private Server Doesn't Look Like An Honest Mistake
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-hillary-clinton-emails-private-server-20160526-story.html......what it does lay out is deeply troubling, even though her supporters have already begun the proclamations of "nothing to see here, move along."
It lays to rest the longtime Clinton defense that this use of a private server was somehow normal and allowed by government rules: It was not normal, and was not allowed by the government rules in place at the time. "The Department's current policy, implemented in 2005, is that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized Automated Information System (AIS), which "has the proper level of security control to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information."......
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)From the Article:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-hillary-clinton-emails-private-server-20160526-story.html
- This is the most profoundly amazing part of the whole story: Clinton's server administrator was hired by State as a political appointee, from which position he continued to provide support to Clinton's private email server during working hours, without telling anyone this was happening:
"The DCIO and CIO, who prepared and approved the Senior Advisor's annual evaluations, believed that the Senior Advisor's job functions were limited to supporting mobile computing issues across the entire Department. They told OIG that while they were aware that the Senior Advisor had provided IT support to the Clinton Presidential campaign, they did not know he was providing ongoing support to the Secretary's email system during working hours. They also told OIG that they questioned whether he could support a private client during work hours, given his capacity as a full-time government employee."
Clinton apparently paid him for the work, but it is impossible to believe that she didn't know this was happening (if her email malfunctioned during the workday, did she expect to wait until 8 or 9 that night for it to come back up?) or that she thought it was OK to hire your private server administrator as a political appointee (a diplomatic political appointee in the IT department?) and then have him keep an eye on your private server from his government office. This has an unpleasant whiff of Tammany Hall about it.
It's really hard to come away from reading this report thinking "Yup, just an honest mistake." Or indeed, "just a mistake, no big deal." Or even "no worse than others have done." I worked in bank IT for several years before I went to business school, and when this story first broke, I enjoyed an amusing hour or so envisioning what regulators would have said if we'd tried any of these sorts of excuses on them. Since then, I've had several such conversations with folks who are still laboring in the trenches of the securities industry, and their bitter laughter still rings in my ears. Why is Clinton being held to a lower standard?
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)And the only way he could have gotten it was by political appointment. He was in no way qualified.
It should be noted that the original server Brian set up used the one Bill had at the end of his presidency. It was already pre-configured by the secret service with the proper credentials to except the Gov network (very important).
Raster
(20,998 posts)"...already pre-configured by the secret service with the proper credentials to except the Gov network..." That way, no one in the Clinton machine had to ask permission, nor had to explain.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)IOWD's, Brian got immunity because it was a conflict of interest that he was working for Hillary in a private capacity while holding a "diplomatic" position in State Dept. He also repeatedy lied about not having "outside jobs" when he signed and resigned his employment forms at State. I guess that could be spun as he was getting paid by her at State to cover his work on the server, but was she paying him "overtime" to handle the Chappaqua server out of her own pocket so there wasn't "technically" a conflict of interest but it was his lying about it that gave him the "immunity"?
Still...he misrepresented his job and did he do that under Hillary's orders or was it his own suggestion?
Chezboo
(230 posts)Remember the October data breach and vendor NGP VAN?
"NGP VAN founder Nathaniel Pearlman has had a very close relationship with the Clintons, and served as chief technology officer for Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign.
According to Pearlman's book Margin of Victory, when Pearlman handed over the day to day operation of then NGP to current CEO Stuart Trevelyan in 2007 it was due to Trevelyan's political background and commitment that went back to Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign war room
and a sense of cool competitiveness that blended perfectly with the NGP vibe.
While working for Clinton, Pearlman managed controversial Clintons email server administrator Bryan Pagliano. In hearings about Clinton's use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State Pagliano has refused to testify before the House Benghazi Committee, asserting his Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination.
Pearlman has stayed close to Clinton since her last presidential bid. Graphicacy, Pearlman's graphic design firm serves Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's think tank The Center for American Progress."
More at:
Former Clinton employee owns company at center of campaign data scandal
Warning: The link to the above article has become unsecured since I last posted it: https://theoutsidernews.com/articles/2015/12/18/former-clinton-employee-owns-company-center-campaign-data-scandal
leveymg
(36,418 posts)may have been a political motive behind the incidents when the VAN firewall came down.
Response to amborin (Original post)
Xipe Totec This message was self-deleted by its author.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)Mmmmmmmm
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Xipe Totec
(43,892 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,169 posts)All hands on deck.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Response to amborin (Original post)
silvershadow This message was self-deleted by its author.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)It's raining shoes.
There are other analogies...
Arazi
(6,829 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)what to do. Guess she has a problem with rules too . .
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,506 posts)Thanks for the thread, amborin.
ancianita
(36,204 posts)The Tribune is historically a right wing paper trying to appear fair and balanced. It's not.
Hillary made what could have been an improperly informed choice, but she'll learn about unintended consequences of the RW journalistic jackals who smell evil intent in the wrong places.
It's pretty much the time now to let voters finish up the primary without media machinery nudging them.
Maybe we should be more fair in informing their votes in the remaining six states. They've pretty much made up their minds, anyway.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)instead of Bernie? Hillary supporters haven't had much problem with that.
ancianita
(36,204 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Then with every positive thing they have ever said about him which isn't much, they immediately follow it up with something negative in the same breath, and until the State Department email report Hillary has had nothing but positive media coverage with the anchors making sure to tell us how many super delegates Hillary has about a million times a day.
ancianita
(36,204 posts)Hillary. Your super delegates claim ran cycles ago. Now what we see is the upcoming final primary exposure, and not much of that for her, either. When she's out there it's still in connection to her in-party opponent.
These are the latest I've seen, along with my getting the New York Times and Chicago Tribune every day.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/281331-poll-clinton-sanders-deadlocked-in-california
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/clinton-teeters-on-brink-of-nomination-with-superdelegates/
I'm trying to be clear about media. In general, they don't give Democrats of either wing much attention, but amplify every gesture and blurt of the idiot party's wrestling host.
The public's perspective on how they're doing is so different from DU's, not in any way influenced by what we think of media coverage, that we'll just have to dissect media's influence on them when all primaries are over. Just my take.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)about Trump or what Trump is saying about Hillary. Hillary and the media have already shifted toward the GE. Well those that have not voted yet have not shifted to the GE yet and neither have I.
ancianita
(36,204 posts)bjo59
(1,166 posts)The media machinery has been nudging voters from day 1 of the primary season with its blackout of Bernie Sanders. Why get worried about the effects of the media now?
ancianita
(36,204 posts)The email story might fulfill anti-Hillary people's wish to bring her down, but anti-Hillary people here will have to face that beltway insiders won't make an example of her no matter what the Tribune reports.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)ancianita
(36,204 posts)c
Avalux
(35,015 posts)You speak of Hillary as if she's some naive babe in the woods. Are you kidding me?
ancianita
(36,204 posts)latest primary; it usually endorses GOP candidates and doesn't mind at all keeping on the Hillary trail of character assault by innuendo journalism.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Blackberry so she turns around and hooks it up to a private server? Yes, depending upon who she talked to about that, I might agree that choice was improperly informed. Unfortunately, it's still a felony to trade classified information with people without proper clearances regardless of how you do it.
ancianita
(36,204 posts)felony if you're under DHS, which she was absolutely not -- nor was she legally compelled to do anything the NSA said except under advisement. That's it. So there's no "regardless of how you do it" about any of this.
And she's not the first to take the prerogative that comes with that position. Just as other Secretaries of State have, Colin Powell only being one.
The old smell of double standard wouldn't even be rearing its sexist head if she weren't running for president, or if she were Colin Powell running for president.
The anti-Hillary people need to give up this line of argument.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)when they were referred for prosecution. DHS has nothing to do with it - NSA is a separate agency under the DOD. Please don't post assertions on subjects you obviously know nothing about.
ancianita
(36,204 posts)anything DHS says. Or the CIA. OR the NSA under the DoD.
THAT is my point, regardless of your niggling. Don't tell me what I don't obviously know. You don't know who I am or what I know.
I'll bet you drinks to dinners no prosecution will happen.
karynnj
(59,508 posts)I can name ONE - Hillary Clinton.
PS Colin Powell did not do this.
ancianita
(36,204 posts)If Hillary's the first, so fucking what. The current nuclear arsenal system STILL runs on fucking floppy disks, for chrissake.
There is nothing she's done that anyone but her former boss, Obama, has the authority to indict her for, and it will be his say-so that determines what the FBI or DOJ do.
Even if they go through with it, he'll pardon her because no overall national security has been compromised.
karynnj
(59,508 posts)Although she personally and through surrogates tried to make it sound like her predecessors and Kerry - for a time did so too. In fact, no one had a server. Powell was the only prior SoS to use email for SD business - and he did it just for messages to people NOT IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT system which was then an intranet. In addition, the SD people put in the line and were completely aware that it was used by his computer. There was nothing secretive. What he did wrong was not archiving those messages. As to Kerry, he immediately used the government account. He did occasionally get messages he determined to be SD related on his private account, but he transferred them to his SD account and insured they were archived.
I think people would be less upset had she been totally honest back in March 2015 when the story came out and if she had cooperated with the IG.
ancianita
(36,204 posts)get this behind her, she's got to explain it up front IF/WHEN No Drought Don brings it up.
I don't think of it being an issue that will keep her out of office. I really think this campaign is about what her vast experience is and how she envisions America's improvement under her presidency.
That's what this Berner wants to see.
This internal party flogging about the emails isn't helping any of us against Trump one bit.
Baitball Blogger
(46,775 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)I have to stress, had Sanders not run, she would be getting away with it: she'd still have the illusion of a strong and liberal standard-bearer who just made some well-intentioned missteps
remember, they got Biden to drop out when Sanders was around 30%, thinking that'd rally the non-wonk centrist "mainstream" of the voters around her
floriduck
(2,262 posts)He's the only person showing any sort of integrity left among the three remaining candidates. At least there is a legitimate option for saving the face of the party.
Raster
(20,998 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)Her supporters can yell "nothing to see here, move along."all they want. What's there isn't hidden.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)Raster
(20,998 posts)Having their own private email server allowed Hillary to conduct the country's business AT THE SAME TIME as conducting her personal business, and frequently the Clinton private business (The Clinton Foundation apparatus), over lapped with, her legitimate duties as Secretary of State. None of this was an accident, it was all by design. The outright RAGE at Sanders and his supporters is because the Sanders candidacy allowed a glimpse behind the Clinton curtain.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)And more about keeping Obama out of the loop, and avoiding freedom of information requests. She could have easily managed two devices.
That her emails were not getting to employees is amusing.
Raster
(20,998 posts)...wanting any prying eyes or ears.
ancianita
(36,204 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)of mishandling classified information that followed. That's all the intent necessary to charge her with multiple felonies.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)to disqualify this person? Where will we draw the line? I think all of these revelations add up at a certain point.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Hillary was smart to do it. I can picture her now, pulling the cables, writing the code, testing. She is brilliant.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Ensures the least amount of citizens will hear about this. By Tuesday this will not be news, until the next shoe drops.