Is it me or is FBI director wrong in saying Hillary should have known better?

[Shankapotomus]

First of all, it needs to be restated that: At the time Clinton was Secretary, the Federal Records Act didn’t require federal employees to use government accounts, only to preserve records of their communications.

In this, Clinton did the best to her knowledge to turn over all government related emails. And the director cleared her of any intentional wrong doing in that respect.

Now here's the problem with the director saying Hillary should have known better:

If the government's own security experts themselves at the time, did not see, require or recommend that governmental officials NOT use private servers or private emails accounts, why do they expect a government official that is not a security expert to know better?

You're the security experts that she is looking to for guidance, recommendations and rule compliance advice.

If Hillary should have known, the security experts also should have known and not allowed the use of private servers.

Why allow it if it's extremely careless?

How could she know better if the people who are supposed to know better didn't know better?

[sufrommich]

1. He inserted a lot of editorializing that he shouldn't have.nt

[Shankapotomus]

7. I guess he had me fooled

I wouldn't have pegged that as editorializing if you didn't point it out. For someone who sounded so impartial as he talked, the part about her being careless as she complied with rules, just didn't sound right.

[uponit7771]

31. That was an opinion and not a statement of fact, legally he's not the privier of reasonable either

[fleabiscuit]

27. +1

[MH1]

2. "Matt Miller, former spokesman for the FBI" agrees with your headline.

Just now on MSNBC.

His reason is different, however, and I agree with it (and yours as well). The FBI's job is to determine whether charges should be filed, that is all. Comey has no business making the statements he did, which are highly political. He simply should have said that the FBI did not find sufficient evidence to recommend charges. (I would add, possibly some detail around why the evidence wasn't sufficient.) Comey has no business making statements like "she was careless" or anything like that.

[underpants]

30. Comey was publicly airing his butt hurt

And providing mouth words to keep this alive.

[No Vested Interest]

3. It's extremely hard to put one's mindset 7+ years back in time.

Our minds are now in 2016, and putting ourselves back to 2009 is very difficult.
But face it, many were advanced in technological knowledge and thinking at that time, but many were not.

[Matrosov]

4. I think he was criticising the State Department in general

Of course she should have known better than to transmit classified information over an unsecured system, but I think he was criticizing the careless attitude at the State Department in general as well, since Clinton wasn't the only one involved.

[brush]

10. Clinton, like most of us rely on the IT people to make it all work and be secure

Back in '09 many non-tech people were not aware of servers and even emails not being secure.

Comey did indeed go too far with the scolding. Everyone in State and the Admin even knew about her server but did nothing to discourage its use because they were not IT experts either.

State's servers were no more secure. Comey said that as well.

[loyalsister]

16. How do we best ensure that FOIA is facilitated and protected?

is a question that any high level official should ask and do everything possible to make sure that they not only are, but also appear to be as transparent as possible. Rules are in place to provide exactly that guidance. It's not a crime to ignore those rules, but it is irresponsible to not learn them.

[SunSeeker]

44. It wasn't classified at the time it was transmitted, Matrosov.

You are repeating a bullshit right wing talking point. All of the so-called classified emails were deemed classified after the fact in the State Department's process of combing throught them to assemble its response to the FOIA request of those right wing Hillary haters, Judicial Watch,

[SickOfTheOnePct]

66. It wasn't marked classified

huge difference.

Hillary isn't responsible for not knowing unmarked documents were classified, but the people who removed the markings and moved them down should be fried.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

83. And if you read Comey's statement

many were classified at the time they were sent.

I found his criticism to be of the State Department in general, and I think it was well placed. There are regulations about how classified material is to be handled, and top among those regulations is to not put classified information on unclassified systems. Hillary didn't do that - someone else in her office did, and had they been caught doing so while she was in office, they most likely would have lost their clearances and their jobs.

[SunSeeker]

88. None of it was marked classified at the time it was sent or received by Hillary.

And you are correct, Hillary didn't mishandle classified materials.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

89. It doesn't matter whether it was marked classified or not

If I take a document containing classified material and remove the classification markings, that doesn't make the information unclassified, it just makes the document incorrectly marked with regards to classification.

And I didn't say that Hillary didn't mishandle classified documents - she did. Replying to or forwarding emails that contain classified information is, in fact, mishandling classified information.

I said that she didn't copy the information from a classified system to an unclassified system - someone else in her office did that.

[SunSeeker]

90. Being marked classified does matter.

Ask the FBI.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

92. No problem

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

So, a few were marked classified, but still sent, and most of the classified emails were not marked as classified, but should have still been protected as classified...because they were classified.

[SunSeeker]

93. No, none were marked classifed. That is not what Comey said. nt

[SickOfTheOnePct]

94. The quote I used is from Comey

And that's exactly what he said...twice...

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information

In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

[SunSeeker]

95. That is very different from saying the emails were marked classified.

Saying the emails contained classified information is not the same as saying they were marked classified.

Comey was very careful to not say they were marked classified. Instead, he used the awkward, vague description "bore markings indicating the presence of classified information." That could mean anything.

Some, Comey included, will argue that this distinction makes no difference, but it certainly does, especially when judging whether or not Hillary Clinton lied. In this case, it’s important to listen carefully to what Comey said, which is that a “very small number” (whatever that means) “bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”

There are several problems with this, most fundamental among them being that Comey’s press conference should have lasted 30 seconds, and not included what amounted to 15 minutes of unanswered, unexamined testimony against Hillary Clinton. No one can cross-examine Comey and ask him what “a very small number” means, nor can we know which “markings” he’s referring to. For example, one of the emails that Hillary-haters declared a smoking gun was one which bore the word “confidential” in the subject line, but which referred to attorney-client privilege, not government classification. Was there a “very small number” of these?

http://thedailybanter.com/2016/07/heres-why-hillary-clinton-isnt-a-liar-and-james-comey-needs-to-shut-the-entire-fck-up/

[SickOfTheOnePct]

96. You can try to twist it however you like

but saying "e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information" means that the emails were marked as classified.

She received, and apparently replied to or forwarded, an email that was marked "Secret" on an unclassified system. Other than apparent lax oversight of her staff with regards to handling classified information, it's certainly not her fault that she received it, but it certainly is her fault that she sent it on.

The people most at fault here are the ones who knowingly moved Top Secret, SAP and Secret emails from the proper domains down to an unclassified system. It isn't something that can accidentally happen - a conscious decision had to be made to do it. Those people should be identified so that they can never again obtain a security clearance.

[SunSeeker]

97. I'm not the one twisting things.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

98. Willful blindness

Is still blindness.

There were emails, a very few, that were properly marked as classified, and Hillary sent them on to others.

[SunSeeker]

99. It is not me who is being willfully blind.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

100. When the FBI director says

that she sent emails that were marked as containing classified information, and you continue to say that he never said she sent emails that were marked as containing classified information, then YOU are the one being willfully blind, not me.

[SunSeeker]

104. No, "marked classified" has a very distinct meaning; that's why Comey didn’t use the term.

Again, you are misquoting Comey. Comey was being very careful with his wording because he knew he was full of shit.

As I told you in post 95 above, Comey was very careful to not say they were "marked classified." Instead, he used the awkward, vague description "bore markings indicating the presence of classified information." That could mean anything.

Turns out two of the emails he was referring to were simply condolance calls that were incorrectly marked. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=173282

[yeoman6987]

103. Why are we still discussing this?

She is free. Let it go.

[SunSeeker]

105. Good question. But I'm not the person in this thread who won't let it go. nt

[yeoman6987]

106. Understand. I think I was reading through and just had to stop and say something

Nothing on you at all.

[Shankapotomus]

5. Delete: Replied to wrong person (eom)

[lapucelle]

6. Comey seems to have entitlement issues.

Comey needs to apologize for the editorializing and speculation. It was partisan, unprofessional, and sexist.

[unblock]

8. i think he was more specific in his "should have known" bits

for instance, he said she should have known certain classified information was in fact classified, and he said she should have known that an unsecured email server wasn't an appropriate system to use for classified information.

i don't think he said she shouldn't have used a private server system at all.

in particular, it would have been fine for purely information that wasn't classified.

[Shankapotomus]

13. But the thing is

It wasn't explicitly disallowed by the security protocol to send classified emails through a private email account....only to preserve and forward them to a government account.

So, again, if the security experts didn't know and require classified emails not be sent through private emails, if we are to believe the fbi director, our security experts are careless and should have known.

So what do they expect of a government official who is not a computer security expert?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

84. The use of the private email server isn't a big issue, IMO

I think the law was cloudy about whether she could or couldn't, so no big deal.

But private email server or not, classified information is NEVER supposed to be sent on unclassified systems. Ever.

It's not the private server that is concerning, it's the fact that some employees of the State Department knowingly sent Hillary classified email on an unclassified system.

[fleabiscuit]

28. He was man mansplaining. nt

[bluedye33139]

9. She should have known better

I am a raging Hillary supporter, in the past few months I've been accused hundreds of times of being a paid poster.

And I can easily say if this was a mistake. Hillary Clinton should have known better, and she should have handled this better. I admire the way that she let it become a huge bogeyman in the minds of her opponents, with Bernie Sanders and Republican party believing that they could take her out on this. That was a masterful move, but I wish that she had ironed out the whole state department email address thing years ago.

[PSPS]

14. LOL. Yes, I'm sure everyone appreciates your "concern!"

[Shankapotomus]

15. If she should have known better

then our security experts should have known better and the rules should have reflected that.

[bluedye33139]

25. Ok great

Okay, great.

[loyalsister]

17. Exactly

Who doesn't know about viruses and hacking and any other security issues related to computers? I would expect someone to acquire certainty in protocols for dealing with hard copy communication, why would anyone not take the time to learn the same about electronic communication? Particularly when FOIA is in the mix.
I'm glad this is over and I hope she learned a lesson about how it all works and the purpose of these rules and will use it to her advantage to run a transparent executive branch.

[Shankapotomus]

19. If such conduct was careless

and compromised national security, the rules at the time should have reflected that. If her own security experts didn't know, how can you expect Hillary to know?

[loyalsister]

21. It's reasonable to expect a person to ask

to find out as many details as possible when it comes to dealing with sensitive information, be it hard copy or electronic. I expect that a person who is not very familiar with computer systems would work hard to be informed. I assume the government IT personnel have bosses who are well versed in those procedures, thus there were people who would be able to educate her security team. Being as informed as possible about security details one does not know previously represents a disciplined work ethic to me.

[uponit7771]

34. It's not reasonable for her to know more than the experts on the matter

[Exilednight]

39. Then she's not as smart as everyone claims she is. when I don't know

Something I take the time to ask questions to those that do. A rule of thumb for any leader is if you invest time upfront asking detailed questions you save a lot of time and money down the road on the back end.

[uponit7771]

46. "everyone" said she knows more than experts in an area? REALLY? Are you sure you're not sploding?

[stopbush]

55. Nonsense. You yourself cannot ask questions if you are not aware that

questions NEED to be asked.

In this case, Hillary followed the procedures as they existed. You are implying that she should have been clairvoyant and asked questions that would not have been questions at the time.

Ridiculous.

[Exilednight]

72. Anyone who is in public service should be smart enough to ask if

1. Is it within my jurisdiction to decide to use a private server?

2. What, if any, are the possible security risks?

3. Is there a way to make my server more secure than the .gov system?

4. Are there any limitations on what may, or may not, be sent thru my server, besides the obvious of classified information.

These are pretty basic questions that were never asked.

[stopbush]

73. The deep dark secret is that the servers at State were absolute crap

when it came to security and that Hillary was most likely encouraged by the IT people to set up her own server if she wanted any level of security.

I have heard this expressed now by at least four people involved with gov IT who worked at State and the NAS, and who have also said that Hillary used her own resources to set up that server at a cost that far exceeded her salary.

[Exilednight]

74. Pure speculation.

[stopbush]

75. No more speculative than your posts.

Checkmate.

[Travis_0004]

77. Maybe her security expert was an idiot

He was hired by clinton to setup her email server. Telling her "this is a bad idea" may have gotten him fired as there was no need.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

85. Anyone with a security clearance

knows that you're not supposed to send classified information on an unclassified system, personal server or government server.

There is no way to do it by accident; someone in her office made a conscience decision to do so.

[awoke_in_2003]

26. I am a tepid Hillary supporter

And even I can smell your bullshit.

[bluedye33139]

59. ?

Your eloquent post raises all sorts is questions, but i wonder what would be gained by discussing it point-by-point.

Personally I doubt that my POV is such a complex position to take. It was a mistake but it was not a crime. It could have been handled better. I don't see that these are such unbelievably strange or unintelligible points.

[840high]

33. Yes - she should have

known better. Lessons learned.

[pnwmom]

37. They wouldn't give her a secure Blackberry and the .gov account couldn't be

used when she traveled.

So no Secretary of State had ever used the .gov account prior to Kerry.

How did they expect her to communicate? By carrier pigeon?

[OriginalGeek]

50. WHen did Bernie try to take her out over emails?

I admire the way that she let it become a huge bogeyman in the minds of her opponents, with Bernie Sanders and Republican party believing that they could take her out on this

.

He explicitly said everyone was tired of hearing about them. I am a Bernie supporter who never once thought the emails were a thing to worry about.

[bluedye33139]

60. Didn't memorize his talks

I didn't bother memorizing anything Bernie said, as he isn't a Democrat and clearly was going to lose.

[OriginalGeek]

70. lol

whatevs

[BumRushDaShow]

11. Federal IT has been around a LONG LONG time

The problem is the applicability of regs related to electronic (or other types of communications) to appointees (i.e., notably any Schedule C) and the lack of consistency from department to department and agency to agency on that applicability (in any explicit way). Career feds know that appointees - particularly at the highest levels, are given some leeway, often due to their crazy schedules and need to respond/act quickly. But I think the expectation is that they weigh risk/benefit at all times to mitigate any fallout from the decisions.

[tallahasseedem]

12. His job was to state the facts...

not editorialize. It was complete bullshit.

[B2G]

18. It's not just you. nt

[CBGLuthier]

20. At the time the proverbial buck stopped at her desk. Her staff fucks up it is her fault.

Do you really need a teflon queen to elect?

[uponit7771]

36. No, how about an objective FBI director who doesn't think we give a shit about his opinions on depts

[Matrosov]

22. The more I think about it, the more questions I have

I said earlier she should've known better than to transmit classified information over an unsecured system. After all, her use of a private server in general wasn't the problem, only the sending and receiving of classified information. But the more I think about it, the more questions I have

For example, what specifically constitutes a secured system? Do these requirements extent to private systems used for transmitting classified information? If not, the problem isn't with anyone but the people who wrote the rules.

If they do extend to private systems used for transmitting classified information, and Clinton's server did not meet these requirements, was she even aware? There's a difference between using an unsecured system for sensitive information because you're being careless and using it because your technical people led you to believe it was in fact a secure system.

[haele]

38. All information can be classified according the the federal government.

The following information is "classified" according to government regulations:
Personal Identification Information - along with the SSNs (which everyone agrees is critically sensitive and should never be in email), phone numbers (including cell phone and work phone numbers), addresses (not only home and work, but travel lodging and work addresses), other email or social networking accounts, and birthdays.
And quite a lot of this information is already in the various federal employee's signatures on their unclassified emails, or in social network accounts, etc...

HIPPA medical information (including scheduled appointments or announcements of medical status, like pregnancies or future procedures that may affect one's work schedule...),

NOFORN (No foreign dissemination) or FOUO (For Official Use Only) information -
Work or Duty Schedules
Federal scheduled events (exercises, inspections or audits, and public affairs events)
Cost information on federal purchases, training, or operational expenses.
Contract and "Manpower" information.

And a multitude of other data which can be used in aggregate that might create harm to individuals, operations or security within the United States. All these things are classified.

I've seen a base volleyball team schedule classified FOUO (for official use only) because - well, I guess someone could take the volleyball roster, the schedule, and the duty station watch-bill and determine one person's activity on a certain date, and exploit that information for some reason or another.

And yet, I can Google a lot of low-level classified FOUO information from my home computer.

So, when Comey talks about careless transmission of classified information over an unsecured system, pretty near every federal employee, including Comey himself, is guilty of breaking that particular rule. All network systems have security breakdowns as part of the normal cycle of use and maintenance; if there is an interface - even if it's a disk or a USB port - or more than one user on a system, there is a security risk that can be exploited. That's why there's always security upgrades being pushed on even the classified servers on networks and there's firewalls and disabled functionality on government and associated (i.e., private or individual) networks that connect to a government network.


There are only two situations that need to be addressed with the "Clinton Email Scandal".
There are rules for setting up and securing private servers, telework, or use of non-government servers. If those rules are being followed, and permission is present, there is no problem with using a private or a non-government server.
There are rules for use of email and transmission of data over "unclassified" service. Even so-called classified (low-level classified; like PII, HIPPA, NOFORN, FOUO) information might be sent, so long as there are sufficient encryption and certification protocols in place on the network being used. If those rules are being followed and permission to transmit is present, again, there is no problem.

There are all sorts of problems with email, access, and data transmission on all networks that in inherent in the technology and with people in general. Security is evolutionary; there have been hundreds of changes in types of risks, protocols, mitigation processes as they have been discovered. When researching IT from 2010, security procedures and data handling had changed radically since then; some of what was allowable then would be a termination offence now.

So how hard do we want to bring the hammer down on someone for operating within the system when almost all the issues had become issues after the fact (as it were). If Clinton's IT people fixed security issues as soon as they were aware (or made aware) of a risk, again, it should not be an issue. If it had been lax enough for a criminal charge, then she and her IT people should be made responsible.

Whatever problems I have with Ms. Clinton, it's not with what has been determined from her email and server usage. Those are measurable. She's either "guilty" or "not guilty" of whatever the charges would be. No more actionable misuse was found than could be found on any other government employee or contractor network.

Comey's editorializing. Which is just as inappropriate as sending classified FOUO email on an unclassified server.

Haele

[Bradical79]

23. Yes and no...

He shouldn't have offered his opinion to the public. I don't think it's reasonable that Clinton herself should have known better, but her IT people and those at the State department should have shot down the idea right from the start.

[Shankapotomus]

48. +1 (eom)

[msongs]

24. clinton herself has said what happened was a mistake nt

[Marr]

29. She did know better. That's why her staff was ordered not to discuss it. /nt

[onecaliberal]

32. ^^^That^^^

[840high]

35. .that^

[JanMichael]

68. Group silence in a witch hunt is normal. Repukes will chew on anything. nt

[Skittles]

78. oh please

being told not to talk about an ongoing investigation is standard, solid advice

[Marr]

79. It had nothing to do with any ongoing investigation.

Clinton staffers raised concerns that emails could contain Federal records that had to be preserved, by law. They were told (falsely) that the email system had been vetted technically and legally, and that they were not to raise the subject again.

[Skittles]

81. apparently it wasn't enough for an indictment

ENOUGH already

[Marr]

82. Apparently not. But my point stands. /nt

[thesquanderer]

40. re:"didn’t require fed employees to use govt accounts, only to preserve records of communications"

She didn't preserve records of her communications. So she missed that at least. (Anything sent to/from a .gov should have automatically been preserved on the other end, but she made no attempt to preserve the rest.)

[thesquanderer]

41. He said "careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

That was not specifically or only about the use of the private server.

There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
...
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

[HassleCat]

42. Yeah, how could she know?

She was a Secretary, 19 years old, with a high school education, living in her little basement apartment, walking to work every day... How could she know?

[SunSeeker]

43. It was utterly unprofessional and inappropriate to hold a ranting presser like that.

As reported in TPM:

Ex-DOJ Spox: Comey Broke Rules With 'Outrageous' Presser On Clinton Emails

A former Justice Department spokesman under former Attorney General Eric Holder called FBI Director James Comey's press conference announcing he would not recommend charges against Hillary Clinton over her email servers "absolutely outrageous."

In a series of posts on Twitter, Matthew Miller said the FBI and DOJ are "supposed to speak in court," not press conferences.

Miller also tweeted the presser was symptomatic of Clinton yet again getting "worse treatment than anyone else would."

He also suggested that Comey's announcement violated DOJ rules about disclosing information about ongoing investigations.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/matthew-miller-comey-doj-hillary-clinton

[Shankapotomus]

49. +1 (eom)

[uponit7771]

52. +1

[sarae]

64. +1, thank you.

[JanMichael]

69. Agreed. It is like there are no responsible adults left in this world. nt.

[bigbrother05]

45. She should have known better than do something the GOP could hit her with?

Same kind of logic that attacks the way a rape victim dressed or how the victim of a homophobic attack talked/acted in public.

Of course, following the regulations is no excuse for giving the haters something to hate.

I would prefer transparency in all officials, but Dems tend to be closer to an ideal than their counterparts.

[Proud Public Servant]

47. As someone who wotked in the Clinton State Department

I can tell you that, yes, the law was clear - but so were the internal and external regulations about handling classified and sensitive information. She's certainly not the only official, high or low, who I've seen handle such information in a cavalier manner, nor the worst I've seen (*coughrichardholbrookecough*). But unless you want to argue that she's different from the little people, then a reprimand is in order (though not via a press conference; that's outrageous). The only thing that chafes me is that her staff probably commtted far more violations than she did, and are no doubt responsible for many of hers, but they're getting off scott-free.

[Shankapotomus]

54. But didn't the rules at the time not prohibit

federal employees from using private accounts...even for classified emails...as long as that classified material was preserved and forwarded to a government account?

It seems to me if the IT experts have given a non IT expert the impression a particular way of handling classified emails is permissible, it doesn't makes sense to then turn around and accuse that no IT expert of being careless.

[Proud Public Servant]

62. Not so

Classified always had to be handled on a classified system, period. We were told over and over again that even if personal accounts were used for State business, as sometimes they had to be (e.g, when the State system was remotely inaccessible, which happened quite a bit), we must NEVER use personal accounts to handle sensitive or classified materials. The rule was crystal clear.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

67. My feelings exactly

There is no way to "accidently" move classified information to an unclassified domain. It's a deliberate act, and those who did it should be charged accordingly.

[karynnj]

87. Scott free - only if HRC wants

Her staff, which was with her before the SD and left with her, likely expect top positions in her administration.

1) If HRC wants them and the position needs confirmation --- if they are among those named, that might be tough.
2) If they were responsible for her problems, she may not carry them into her administration. Her reputation suggests loyalty, but it would be prudent to dump someone who led to trouble.

[treestar]

51. Good point.

Government security people should know before the people who are using it.

[floriduck]

53. Please. Look forward. Let it go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7980518

[Shankapotomus]

56. oh okay

well yeah sure

[floriduck]

58. Read my post. She's now focused on the GE as you should be. Stop the parsing of Comey's words.

It accomplishes zero to help Hillary win.

[Skittles]

57. he is tossing a bone to rightwing hacks

[whistler162]

61. Obviously he was wrong since Sec. Clinton

hasn't spent the last 25+ years being hounded by the Republicans and Journalists for any perceived wrong doing!<SARCASM>


Yeah, she and her people should have known better.

[bonemachine]

63. It's you.

She should have known better and, frankly, I think she did know better.

FOIA runarounds are not criminal, but they damn well should be.

[Yo_Mama]

65. Using personal email vs solely using personal email is a big deal.

It was against the rules. See the Inspector General's report:
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf

Page 27:

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.”112 The FAM defines an AIS as an assembly of hardware, software, and
firmware used to electronically input, process, store, and/or output data.113 Examples include:
mainframes, servers, desktop workstations, and mobile devices (such as laptops, e-readers,
smartphones, and tablets).
This policy comports with FISMA, which was enacted in December 2002 and requires Federal
agencies to ensure information security for the systems that support the agency’s operations
and assets, including information security protections for information systems used by a
contractor of an agency or other organization on behalf of an agency.114 FISMA defines
information security as protecting information and information systems from unauthorized
access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction in order to provide for the
integrity, confidentiality, and availability of the information and systems.115 In 2006, as required
by FISMA, NIST promulgated minimum security requirements that apply to all information
within the Federal Government and to Federal information systems.116 Among these are
requirements for certifying and accrediting information systems, retaining system audit records
for monitoring purposes, conducting risk assessments, and ensuring the protection of
communications.

A US ambassador was fired during Clinton's tenure for doing what she did.

In addition, the failure to use a system that incorporated backups/archives meant (as the FBI and the IG have explained) that Clinton did not comply with the Federal Records Act.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

71. I more or less figured as much, and honestly I don't care.

In a normal cycle, it might prove for some ammunition for the Republican candidate.

But their candidate this year is Donald Trump. Donald Trump. And everything Donald Trump brings along in terms of baggage.

This will pretty much fade into the background given Trump's antics on a nearly daily basis.

[underthematrix]

76. Comey is a Republican and appointed for a 10 year term

President Obama appointed Comey in 2013 so HRC will have him for her entire first term. Maybe he'll resign.

[GeorgeGist]

80. Lynch should ask for his resignation ...

post haste.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

86. Why? For telling the truth?

The State Department was extremely sloppy in handling classified information. They put info that resides at one of the highest classifications, SAP, on an unclassified system.

They should have been called out so that if it's still happening, those who are doing it will either stop, or suffer the consequences.

[The Second Stone]

91. He was over the top. His job was to find facts

and if there were facts to support a criminal indictment, to say so. His opinion about facts that do not amount to that is unprofessional.

[Rex]

101. He's a former Bush appointee. So maybe he was hoping to sling some mud.

His opinion was not warranted.

[hollowdweller]

102. He may have been wrong in saying it...but she should have known better.

I retired from the gov't a few years ago. We did not handle classified material but we had multiple training sessions every year about what we could send over email.

Since we had a secure network we could send PII emails within our agency's .gov emails because those emails were protected by our IT people.

However we could not correspond with clients or attorney's by sending them info that contained PII to THEIR private email accounts because they were not considered secure, and the clients personal info could possibly be stolen by a hacker or somebody who gained their email password.

We could use our gov email to send a personal email but using our personal email for work would have been a no no.

At least in our agency I don't think there was any way you could not know what Clinton did, did agency business over personal email and sent info to unsecured email addresses was not a no no. I would have thought that the State Dept would have had an even stricter policy than ours. But I guess not.

That said if we did something like that we wouldn't have been prosecuted or fired but just drug across the coals for knowing better, which is what the guy did to Clinton.