Worse By Minute: Chicago Tribune: Clinton's Private Server Doesn't Look Like An Honest Mistake

[amborin]

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]

1. Of course it wasn't a mistake

[KoKo]

17. "Clinton's server administrator was hired by State as a political appointee,...."

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]

24. Having Brian Pagliano in the position he held at State was critical to Hillary's server set up.

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]

30. Ding! Ding! Ding!

"...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]

35. Is there a "statute of limitations" for cronyism?

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]

43. And guess who managed Pagliano?

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 Clinton’s 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]

52. That's an interesting tie-in. Seems to suggest that there

may have been a political motive behind the incidents when the VAN firewall came down.

[Fairgo]

10. Somehow you make disaster seem so tasty

Mmmmmmmm

[ciaobaby]

26. thanks - you just ruined my day.

[wendylaroux]

28. awful pic

[cui bono]

44. That's horrific. I wish you would delete that. It's very disturbing.

[Xipe Totec]

50. Done. nt

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. Ruh-Roh.

All hands on deck.

[AzDar]

4. K & R

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. New narrative in place

[Octafish]

11. Like being inside Imelda Marcos's closet when a garbage truck drives by.

It's raining shoes.



There are other analogies...

[Arazi]

7. Kicked and recced eom

[snowy owl]

8. She is entitled . . . to do it her way regardless of consequences. Don't tell the Queen

what to do. Guess she has a problem with rules too . .

[noiretextatique]

9. That's because it was not honest or a mistake eom

[Uncle Joe]

12. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, amborin.

[ancianita]

13. Don't fall for this RW attribution of evil intent to a not uncommon practice of cabinet heads.

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]

15. What about the media machinery that has been nudging voters to vote for Hillary

instead of Bernie? Hillary supporters haven't had much problem with that.

[ancianita]

16. I haven't seen any such pro-Hillary media because Trump's crowded the media imagination. Sorry.

[liberal_at_heart]

18. Well then you haven't paying attention. First there is the media blackout of Bernie.

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]

19. Of course I have. You shift your goalpost to Bernie to prove your point about

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]

20. Every time I turn on the tv or listen to the radio they are talking about what Hillary is saying

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]

22. I hear you. I'm saying don't trust the Tribune's news about Hillary. They're right wing. That's all.

[bjo59]

33. It's the time now to let voters finish up the primary without media machinery nudging them?

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]

48. Why not make a point about a paper I'm familiar with? Why do you call it worry?

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]

38. Yep, Chicago. That bastion of right-wing media monopolies.

[ancianita]

46. Except I wasn't talking about Chicago. Or bastions. Or right wing media. Or monopolies.

c

[Avalux]

45. "She'll learn about unintended consequences"

You speak of Hillary as if she's some naive babe in the woods. Are you kidding me?

[ancianita]

47. Of course not. I didn't speak of naive. Or babe. The Trib endorsed no Democratic candidates in IL's

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]

53. An "improperly informed choice" like the NSA tells her not to use her unsecure

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]

55. It's not a felony when you're the Secretary of State, #1 of the president's cabinet. It's only a

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]

62. That's gobbledygoop. Heads of agencies are subject to the Espionage Act, as 2 CIA Directors learned

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]

63. Who were the CIA Directors referred to for prosecution. How is the State Department subject to

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]

56. Name one now or ex cabinet head with a private server the Dept head and top staff had accounts on

I can name ONE - Hillary Clinton.

PS Colin Powell did not do this.

[ancianita]

58. Any means for circumventing the decrepit system in place HAD to have a proper server to go with it.

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. First and I think ONLY

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]

60. You don't get rewarded with honesty by either the press or your opponents. If she's going to

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]

14. I wonder how many of these newspapers endorsed her.

[pdsimdars]

21. Good point!

[MisterP]

23. she did all this BECAUSE she knew she'd get editors' sight-unseen endorsements anyway

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]

31. And look how much more corrupt the Dem party would look now if Bernie had not run.

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]

32. Ding! Ding! Ding!

"...had Sanders not run, she would be getting away with it..." Primary 2016 was supposed to be just a long, glorious victory lap on the way to the Coronation.

[Autumn]

25. The report proved it wasn't an honest mistake.

Her supporters can yell "nothing to see here, move along."all they want. What's there isn't hidden.

[floriduck]

27. I'll take the Trib's opinion over the spin I got earlier today from a supposed journalist on DU.

[Raster]

29. THIS. WAS. NO. MISTAKE. Everything done by the Clintons is done with a purpose.

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.

[amborin]

39. +10000

[Jesus Malverde]

41. I think this is less about foundation business

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]

42. I think both are factors. Clearly Clinton was running her own show, and not...

...wanting any prying eyes or ears.

[chwaliszewski]

51. +27

[ancianita]

49. Good points.

[leveymg]

54. Either or both, it constitutes guilty knowledge behind the crime

of mishandling classified information that followed. That's all the intent necessary to charge her with multiple felonies.

[felix_numinous]

34. What will it take

to disqualify this person? Where will we draw the line? I think all of these revelations add up at a certain point.

[Darb]

36. Opinion. And a bad one.

Hillary was smart to do it. I can picture her now, pulling the cables, writing the code, testing. She is brilliant.

[Skwmom]

37. Doesn't look like

[Jesus Malverde]

40. The timing of all these reports on the eve of Memorial Day weekend

Ensures the least amount of citizens will hear about this. By Tuesday this will not be news, until the next shoe drops.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Now that makes 8 national papers

[frylock]

61. knr