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

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
Sat May 14, 2016, 02:47 AM May 2016

One last emails post: the private server and the classified emails are completely unrelated

Because I feel like a ton of people on the board simply don't get this.

Assuming she had kept her ordinary email account on State's servers, and the exact same emails had been sent, the legal situation is no different.

Have some ASCII art:
------------------------------------------------------------
| Public internet | State intranet | Classified network|
------------------A-----------------B-----------------------

I've marked the two network partitions as "A" and "B" there.

The legal liability comes with crossing partition B. It doesn't really matter what happens after that.

The private server is completely a red herring here; the legal liability would be the same if she had stayed on the government server. Guccifer still would have been able to read her emails to Blumenthal if she had stayed on the government server. Why do people keep conflating these two very different issues?

As a separate issue, it's possible that the SSL certificate issued to the server months after it started means they were reading webmail unsecured before that (it's equally possible they were using a self-signed certificate, which is more secure and what I would choose if I were setting up someone's mail server). But that's, again, a separate question.

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
One last emails post: the private server and the classified emails are completely unrelated (Original Post) Recursion May 2016 OP
I think you're missing the FOIA issues here... k8conant May 2016 #1
Judicial Watch would have FOIA'd every single email she wrote anyways Recursion May 2016 #2
but she didn't turn them over when she left State k8conant May 2016 #3
And? Judicial Watch would have FOIA'd, some would have been lost. Some are always lost Recursion May 2016 #4
Wrong! The email were and are government property 4139 May 2016 #5

k8conant

(3,030 posts)
1. I think you're missing the FOIA issues here...
Sat May 14, 2016, 02:54 AM
May 2016

the private server kept the information away from the State Department. Hardly a red herring.


Put on your waders.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
2. Judicial Watch would have FOIA'd every single email she wrote anyways
Sat May 14, 2016, 03:00 AM
May 2016

And in the nature of things some of them wouldn't have been findable either.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
4. And? Judicial Watch would have FOIA'd, some would have been lost. Some are always lost
Sat May 14, 2016, 03:29 AM
May 2016

It's government IT. The sinister allegations would be different but still there. The classified would still have been on an unsecure server.

4139

(1,893 posts)
5. Wrong! The email were and are government property
Sat May 14, 2016, 06:39 AM
May 2016

She was required to archive them 1 month after any email was sent or received. Emails sent and recieved in January and February 2009 were supposed to have been archived in Febuary and March 2009.

PS: Hillary claims that the emails from January to mid-March 2009 were accidentally lost; those government email she says are lost forever. Those emails were government property and she was responsible for them.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»One last emails post: the...