Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

IdaBriggs

(10,559 posts)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 12:04 PM Apr 2016

Hillary's Email Scandal for Non-Techy People [View all]

Last edited Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:19 PM - Edit history (3)

Okay, it looks complicated - you have questions. Let's walk through this gently!

1) Is the Email scandal important?
Yes, it is a very big, very real scandal. Worst case scenarios: people involved might go to jail, pay fines or lose future security clearance/never be able to work in government again.

2) Will it impact Hillary’s Presidential campaign?
That depends on the results of the currently ongoing FBI investigation, with rumors saying it will be completed “soon” (April/May). If the FBI says “nothing to see”, Democrats will be expected to shut up, but realistically the Republicans will mention it frequently during a General Election campaign, and of course convene committees to investigate until the end of time if they are the Majority Party in Congress if Hillary should win.

3) How many FBI agents have been investigating?
At one point the number was publicized as “147” but is now “currently less than 50/maybe a dozen full time.” It is assumed that the “147” number was “everyone who has ever been involved, from the tech geeks to the secretary to the field agents to the intern who did coffee runs”. The investigation has spanned multiple states, and been going on for more than a year, but the FBI folks have been threatened with Dire Consequences for tattling, so all most of us really need to know is “however many they feel it needed”.

4) Is this just a Bernie thing to get Hillary out?
No. Bernie is not a member of the FBI community, nor did he help Hillary set up her email system. Even if Hillary drops out of the race for “personal reasons”, he is not automatically the nominee unless he has enough delegates. If he doesn't, Hillary can “give” her delegates to someone else (even if they haven't been campaigning), and a behind the scenes “brokered” convention could give us a candidate fill-in-the-blank.

5) What exactly did Hillary do?
Lots of stupid stuff: She put government records (her work email) in her basement. She did not hand them over when she left her job. Later, she did not hand * all * of them over when they were subpoenaed. She made the government “break the law” because they could not turn over stuff they did not have when citizens used the “Freedom of Information Act” and requested it. And she did not make "super sure" bad people (“hackers and spies”) could not see the government records that were about national security.

6) Didn't Hillary say there was nothing confidential or top secret in her emails that spies would care about?
She said that, but she lied. Normally, a polite person would say “mistaken” but deliberately telling a falsehood is called “lying” so let's stick with that word.

7) How can you call her a liar?
The first batch of emails contained over a thousand confidential documents, as well as 22 super secret where-are-the-nuclear-weapons (not a joke – we know at least one is about North Korea and their nukes) burn-your-eyes-out-before-reading types. This makes sense because the nature of the job of Secretary of State involves dealing with that stuff, and she herself wrote over a hundred emails we don't want spies to see.

8) Why would she do this?
She says she didn't like to use a “super secure” desktop AT WORK because she liked to use her Blackberry, especially because she traveled a lot.

9) What's wrong with a Blackberry? Or an iPhone? They are awesome!
Ever seen a television show or movie where the hero “clones” a phone and then uses it to spy on people? Turns out that isn't just a plot thing – the spy folk really do that to each other, so emails like, “hey, Barack, let's meet at Starbucks for some Java” would be bad because assassins and stuff. Plus, nukes, etc.

10) How do you know her email wasn't safe? It was on a server, right?
It was on two different servers (more on that in a minute), actually, and neither was being monitored by the IT Anti-Spying Team that the government uses. Keeping hackers away from government secrets is a little more complicated than remembering to upgrade your anti-virus protections – if you are viewing this on the internet, you know what I mean.

11) Two servers? I am so confused!
She used one for several years, then decided to upgrade. She gave the old one to a small company in Colorado to copy files to the new server. They did not know this was a job that dealt with government secrets that they weren't authorized to view, so they treated it like a normal job (like “Best Buy” would, only they were a small company).

12) I have heard about thousands of emails – sometimes 60,000 and sometimes 30,000. Explain?
There were over 60,000 emails on the “basement” servers. When someone FINALLY noticed her email wasn't ".gov" and subpoenaed her during the Benghazi investigation, she printed out 30,000 or so and deleted the rest because she said they were “personal”. A freak out began when it became obvious “classified” and “confidential” stuff was included in that basement stuff. Then, when someone finished sorting through the papers, they realized she had “deleted” work emails/not just personal stuff when she was subpoenaed about it. They got really mad about it.

13) How do they know she deleted work emails/didn't comply with the subpoena?
Other people turned in emails that she didn't. At least one guy (Sidney Blumenthal) did not work for the government, so it looks like she was hoping he would also “forget” to turn things in and no one would ever know.

14) So what is the FBI investigating?
The FBI has been able to retrieve the deleted emails. (The mom-and-pop shop in Colorado kept backups.) We are waiting to see if they think she broke any laws. Plus see answer to #5.

15) What kind of laws?
There are two types: not taking care of government records in the right way (keeping secret stuff safe, for example) and saying/doing stuff that was against the law (based on what is in them). An example of the second would be “not reporting foreign government lobbying by Blumenthal”. The FBI is working with the Justice Department to determine if laws were broken, and what should happen if so.

16) Don't all Secretary of States do this? Albright, Rice, Powell?
No. Albright never used email, Rice didn't do business in email (personal account was just personal), and Powell used a super-secure-no-spyware-allowed desktop at work for business emails. To be fair, these folks didn't have the modern toys we all take for granted now – Powell’s personal account was an AOL account – but no, they never kept stuff in their basement, let alone ALL of their work records.

17) Shouldn't someone have noticed she never used her “.gov” email?
It is reasonable the IT Geek team thought she was just “afraid of email” once they told her she couldn't have a smart phone in the area, but yes, someone should have noticed. There is a guy who took care of things for her that she got a job in the IT department, but his bosses say they didn't know what he did. The FBI has granted him immunity so it is assumed he is going to be testifying in front of a grand jury (if he hasn't already done so).

18) Isn’t this just another Right Wing Attack on Hillary? (Everyone knows they hate her.)
No. The “Republicans Cry Wolf Again" syndrome is strong, but this time they have nothing to do with any of her problems. No member of the Right Wing assisted Hillary in setting up her email systems. No Republican made her sign documents saying she had turned in her work stuff when it was still in her basement. Not even the hate radio folk helped her write her emails. She made all of those decisions on her own. To be fair, her problems mostly began when people found out what she did during the Benghazi hearings/wasn't complying with the subpoenas, but there were already lawsuits in place because of the FOIA stuff, so she will be deposed under oath in those two civil cases per the Judges. She did this on her own.

I hope this helps - please keep in mind this is my translation of everything I have been reading for the last several weeks (and I may have gotten things wrong). I have deliberately NOT included links for ease of reading, but will reference them in Replies/ask that those with other evidence to help with clarification in those sub threads.

198 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Brava! CentralCoaster Apr 2016 #1
Thank you! It is actually complicated stuff (as is to be expected IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #4
It's actually unbelievable. Keystone Kops in a way. Secretary of State, FFS. CentralCoaster Apr 2016 #27
IdaBroggs, this is a concise explanation! Well done! However, I think you should add... FourScore Apr 2016 #69
ANALYSIS: No, Hillary Clinton Did Not Commit a Crime ... at Least Based on What We Know Today Gothmog Apr 2016 #101
With respect, that is pure speculation based on incomplete data. IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #114
Diane Feinstein-There is nothing new here Gothmog Apr 2016 #124
That is not a good analysis. You can get ten years for leaving secret docs on a bar stool. leveymg Apr 2016 #139
Here's something I learned . . . there are NO government documents marked "classified" pdsimdars Apr 2016 #72
Oh, that's very interesting. CentralCoaster Apr 2016 #129
This is exactly why the government... tex-wyo-dem Apr 2016 #90
Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis Gothmog Apr 2016 #97
As credible as a Psychic Call to Ms. Chloe & Her Tarot Hotline. IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #120
How about Senator Feinstein as a source Gothmog Apr 2016 #123
See Reply #70. IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #136
"Some Or All" Of Clinton Emails Designated SAP Referenced Public Information About U.S. Drone Strike Gothmog Apr 2016 #140
No. Much of the TS classified material was NSA information dealing with events in Libya. leveymg Apr 2016 #151
CIA: Trey Gowdy Altered Documents To Frame Hillary Clinton Gothmog Apr 2016 #193
What I see: of 127 Sid emails, only one appears to have been partial redacted by the Comm. leveymg Apr 2016 #194
It is sad to see people being fooled by Howdy Gowdy Gothmog Apr 2016 #195
There was one email where a name was redacted unnecessarily. You failed to make your case here. leveymg Apr 2016 #196
I'm afraid that "no harm" defense hasn't worked in the courts. leveymg Apr 2016 #160
You are wrong again Gothmog Apr 2016 #174
You're just a broken record, a tape on a loop, a gif. Same scrap leveymg Apr 2016 #183
I am amused that you actually think that you understand the legal concepts being discussed Gothmog Apr 2016 #184
Delighted you are amused. But, again you err. Petraeus' binders weren't marked classified, but leveymg Apr 2016 #185
Do you tire of being wrong? Gothmog Apr 2016 #187
Nowhere does that state that his books were marked classifed; Sec 1924 and 793 r different statutes leveymg Apr 2016 #188
There are remedial reading courses that could help you on this Gothmog Apr 2016 #189
I thought DiFi was busy lying to the American people about the wretched effects legal weed is having Warren DeMontague Apr 2016 #163
This is one of those bait and switch analyses. Doesn't mention Sec. 793 the statute most leveymg Apr 2016 #145
You are Wrong again Gothmog Apr 2016 #149
I make a living parsing federal and state statutes for things such as intent and mens rea. leveymg Apr 2016 #154
A key word in the Clinton email investigation: 'knowingly Gothmog Apr 2016 #158
There are six separate crimes under 793. (e) and (f) do not require specific intent leveymg Apr 2016 #161
Brit Hume is a fox news reporter but he is not a total idiot Gothmog Apr 2016 #159
LOL This is the perfect subtitle for this whole thread. nt procon Apr 2016 #178
I was required to take training on proper handling of classified information shawn703 Apr 2016 #176
Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2016 #198
Thank you for this compilation. chervilant Apr 2016 #2
Most welcome and thank you for the kind words. IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #8
Why no sourcing of these amusing but false claims? Gothmog Apr 2016 #102
I have posted many links to sources in numerous comments, and explained why IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #138
The links you are using are sad but funny Gothmog Apr 2016 #143
Excellent summary AgerolanAmerican Apr 2016 #3
Thank you - three decades as an IT geek translating for my innocent users -- IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #6
The 147 was pulled out of Grassley's ass. GeorgeGist Apr 2016 #5
My guess is someone pulled a report against a cost center code IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #7
When was the last time that you or someone you knew had just one FBI agent investigating personaly nolabels Apr 2016 #99
Do you think having no permanent Inspector General in place at the time mak3cats Apr 2016 #9
That may have to do with how she spent the budget money -- IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #13
Thank You For This Non-Techy Account Of This..... global1 Apr 2016 #10
1) is a flat-out "no", which renders the rest moot Tarc Apr 2016 #11
That depends on what your definition of "gross negligence" is rachacha Apr 2016 #16
Post removed Post removed Apr 2016 #33
The standard is indeed high, but whether an action meets rachacha Apr 2016 #35
She knew that she was going to run for POTUS Madam Mossfern Apr 2016 #67
Ooh! Boy, is that "official" response full of bald faced lies! IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #44
GOP created this story, and did so to try and destroy Hillary Clinton's chances to be president. Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #80
They didn't create *the facts* of what she did, which apparently warrant investigation, at a minimum JudyM Apr 2016 #84
And here's the specific law she could get dinged on: rachacha Apr 2016 #12
Thank you - hopefully that makes sense to people. IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #22
There is no specific intent or mens rea here Gothmog Apr 2016 #103
Wow - "removed from its proper place of custody"...would that include jmg257 Apr 2016 #36
There are multiple people whose careers included high level security IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #39
Thanks for bringing that up...thoughtful stuff. Its appreciated! :). Nt jmg257 Apr 2016 #41
I held a government security clearance for many years before I retired. ... spin Apr 2016 #89
Thank you for your service! IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #100
Thanks for your support. (n/t) spin Apr 2016 #157
Yes... nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #42
"Gross negligence" basically = reckless disregard, as opposed to inadvertence. JudyM Apr 2016 #87
There's a flaw in #12 jeff47 Apr 2016 #14
I thought her server was subpoenaed under Benghazi authority? IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #18
Nope. It's completely independent of the Benghazi crap. jeff47 Apr 2016 #24
Okay, here is why it is confusing (and I am not sure I agree with you) IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #30
There's more than one FOIA lawsuit. jeff47 Apr 2016 #37
That still doesn't jibe with the official reports about the "discovery" IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #38
blumenthal didn't "turn over" e-mails , did he? questionseverything Apr 2016 #77
He brought approx 150 emails when he was subpoenaed by the Benghazi committee. IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #88
Also regarding Blumenthal's emails: PatV Apr 2016 #132
Thank you well done clear and to the point awake Apr 2016 #15
Thank you! IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #19
You are amazing, and this is a wonderful op! Punkingal Apr 2016 #17
Thank you! IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #20
This message was self-deleted by its author rbrnmw Apr 2016 #21
bookmark!! dana_b Apr 2016 #23
Well done! berni_mccoy Apr 2016 #25
So anything on this server even emails turned in is a liability? gordianot Apr 2016 #26
TRUE: "The mere fact that it exists was a breach of security with potential consequences." IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #29
The degree to which you are completely full of crap on this is mind-boggling Tarc Apr 2016 #34
Now that is just rude. IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #45
She did none of those things either, so hop off your goddamned high horse Tarc Apr 2016 #61
Factually incorrect. You keep voicing AN OPINION as if your wishes IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #64
You can carry the conservative Republican water all you like, won't make this issue more palatable Tarc Apr 2016 #68
ARGH! Okay, I am going to try one more time - IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #70
Right now, you are lying Tarc Apr 2016 #75
You are so out of your fucking league on this. frylock Apr 2016 #79
No, TARC is a liberal, a Democrat who supports the party and is aware Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #81
Blind partisanship isn't going to save Mrs. Clinton. frylock Apr 2016 #83
So you openly have hatred for the Democratic Party, noted. I know why Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #92
I have an open dislike for conservative policy. frylock Apr 2016 #93
That is ludicrous. Which of us will vote to prevent women from dying from self abortions? Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #94
Hey, guess what? I live in a blue state, so my vote is of ZERO consequence. frylock Apr 2016 #104
That is not the point, is it. Your attitude is carried with you everywhere you go. Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #105
I don't proselytize to family members or coworkers. frylock Apr 2016 #108
Really, your very negative attitude about Hillary is only expressed here on DU? Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #109
Pretty much everyone I associate with has a negative view of Hillary. frylock Apr 2016 #112
Sent or received, it was ON THE SERVER per the Inspector General IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #86
Your sourcing of this amusing collection of falsehoods is sad Gothmog Apr 2016 #115
You now consider the Inspector General a right wing source? IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #117
The Hillary Clinton top-secret email controversy, explained Gothmog Apr 2016 #121
Again, categorically false, per the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community. IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #133
Yep, the "Top Secret" Emails Were All About Drones Gothmog Apr 2016 #141
Read post 119 Gothmog Apr 2016 #137
Wishing I could rec your post ... ebayfool Apr 2016 #156
How did you know FlatBaroque Apr 2016 #76
Sticking to the facts is a great idea-why don't you provide the sourcing for your so-called facts? Gothmog Apr 2016 #134
The degree to which TM99 Apr 2016 #51
All one has to do is read this executive order. gordianot Apr 2016 #52
It's complicated, especially for those of us who don't have the training. IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #54
Simple enough you need a government server not one in your basement. gordianot Apr 2016 #55
Kick azmom Apr 2016 #28
K&R TheDormouse Apr 2016 #31
Thank you and misspelling fixed! IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #32
this needs to be a campaign flier amborin Apr 2016 #40
Bernie has been keeping well clear of it, as he ought (in my opinion). IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #63
I'm ready for it to wrap up. Surely they have enough of whatever they're looking for. Let's do this! WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2016 #43
Does non-techy-people include those who can't do a bank transfer? snooper2 Apr 2016 #46
Well, we know she didn't set up the system -- IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #47
To her defense she doesn't have a bunch of common sense, most people don't snooper2 Apr 2016 #49
Truth! Most people think the IT team is just MEAN - IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #50
She wanted a custom ultra secure BlackBerry like Barak's and they would not give her one. gordianot Apr 2016 #56
Who does he think he is? frylock Apr 2016 #82
Maybe She Bought In To Lifelock And Thought... global1 Apr 2016 #59
O. M. G. IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #66
Hillary Clinton didn't break the law Gothmog Apr 2016 #107
Thank you and bookmarking :) - Hillary's Email Scandal for Non-Techy People nt slipslidingaway Apr 2016 #48
in case you bernie people missed it.. chillfactor Apr 2016 #53
Bernie people have been listening to that refrain for a year now. frylock Apr 2016 #85
K&R TheFarS1de Apr 2016 #57
.... rbrnmw Apr 2016 #58
Thank you for sharing this! IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #60
this one is my alarm every morning rbrnmw Apr 2016 #62
Truthfully, I have a different preference for Frank... IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #65
Dean Martin was fine rbrnmw Apr 2016 #153
I've seen a number of videos on this and this looks like a great job. . . THANKS! pdsimdars Apr 2016 #71
Seriously, I looked through the comments and there were ZERO thanking you pdsimdars Apr 2016 #73
Thanks for this (NT) jack_krass Apr 2016 #74
Hillary, please withdraw, and WITHDRAW NOW!!! Herman4747 Apr 2016 #78
3 counts already set WhenTheLeveeBreaks Apr 2016 #91
Welcome to DU rbrnmw Apr 2016 #95
Thanx very much WhenTheLeveeBreaks Apr 2016 #98
The OP is sad and is full of falsehoods Gothmog Apr 2016 #96
I gave an explanation of why that number was used because it came IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #106
The fact that you are not disclosing your sourcing is all anyone needs to reject this sad OP Gothmog Apr 2016 #110
Here's the thing - I have sources for ALL of the claims. IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #131
I like complicated which which is why I sourced each and every one of my posts Gothmog Apr 2016 #135
Parsing your sentence: IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #142
There was never any doubt about you not being a lawyer Gothmog Apr 2016 #150
This message was self-deleted by its author CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #113
The lack of culpable mental state renders the sad attempts at analysis false Gothmog Apr 2016 #111
This message was self-deleted by its author CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #116
You are wrong Gothmog Apr 2016 #119
You Are In Denial... CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #125
Government Officials: None Of The Emails Were Marked As "Classified" When They Were Sent. Gothmog Apr 2016 #130
This message was self-deleted by its author CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #144
The facts and the law are against your claim Gothmog Apr 2016 #146
My favorite part of your position is how you trust IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #165
The fact that you have no sourcing for your silly and false claims is sad but amusing Gothmog Apr 2016 #171
Sigh. You *must* be a lawyer - you ignore any answer you don't like. IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #177
Thanks for the concise and readable post. I spent Land of Enchantment Apr 2016 #118
Guccifer took screen shots/made copies of Hillary & Sidney Blumenthal's email. IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #166
Yes, it helps a lot. What a bizarre twist to an already convoluted Land of Enchantment Apr 2016 #182
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Apr 2016 #122
The claims about Sec. Powell are false Gothmog Apr 2016 #126
Condoleezza Rice Aides, Colin Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Emails Gothmog Apr 2016 #127
Powell, Rice received sensitive info through private emails Gothmog Apr 2016 #128
Chapter Two: Intent and Design grasswire Apr 2016 #147
The fact is, "Hillary Clinton" is not being investigated by the FBI. George II Apr 2016 #148
Ida, as a fellow mom of twins KMOD Apr 2016 #152
Do you remember Bob_Roony Apr 2016 #155
Here's a good link for more information about it jfern Apr 2016 #162
DU Rec for pissing off the right people. Warren DeMontague Apr 2016 #164
What's your source for your asserted facts? nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #167
Many of them are already listed in the comments (Wikipedia is a favorite). IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #169
You posted this without sources? nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #170
From the Original Post - IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #175
No....it doesn't make sense to post OPs without sources. nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #179
Welcome to a Discussion Board, where everyone is free to voice an opinion. IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #180
Indeed...without citation you've merely expressed an opinion. nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #181
It's not the emails, per se. It's her refusal to comply with subpoenas. mainer Apr 2016 #168
To clarify, the subpoenas were from the committees investigating stuff. IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #172
Thanks for clarification. mainer Apr 2016 #173
Do you have a link for this silly but amusing claim Gothmog Apr 2016 #190
I don't know why I am bothering. IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #191
"Hillary can give her delegates to someone else"? NorthCarolina Apr 2016 #186
Yes. IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #192
This makes me smile Gothmog Jul 2016 #197
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Hillary's Email Scandal f...»Reply #0