[roywiggins]

Nobody has managed to find any documents that passed through Clinton's email server that were labeled as classified, let alone Top Secret.

(One or two documents had classified sections, which were labeled with small (c) marks. The document should have had big CLASSIFIED marks, but since it didn't, missing a (c) next to a paragraph is not an arrestable offense)

[duncanawoods]

You are not being neutral by using the Clinton spin of "labeled as classified". The existence of markings is irrelevant. From the FBI statement:

110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified”

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-b...

[lvs]

I find the situation she engendered as ridiculous as everyone else, but the public report, at least as far as I could tell, did not differentiate sending and receiving of information. Ascribing criminal culpability to her is therefore unclear based on the public form of the report, and the lack of charges implies that it's unclear in the classified version of events as well.

[tynpeddler]

I think people fault her because the server was setup, maintained and used on her authority. Since she created the unsafe situation, she's responsible.

[ethanbond]

Stop pushing this myth.

I want Hillary to win as much as the next reasonable person, but that doesn't mean she didn't mess up.

There were dozens of classified emails that were in fact classified at the time they were sent. Some of which were Top Secret. Some of which were even Special Access Programs.

Whether something is marked or not is actually irrelevant. Part of her responsibility and this contractor's responsibility under the clearance agreement is to identify classified content regardless of markings.

[roywiggins]

Point taken. You're correct on all points.

Discussing classified matters through an insecure method is a far cry from physically taking documents home, not least because it's clear the discussions were being undertaken as part of her official duties. Taking documents home is a lot more ambiguous as to intent.

[Someone1234]

> Discussing classified matters through an insecure method is a far cry from physically taking documents home

It is identical. He is being accused of moving classified information to unauthorised locations. She moved information to unauthorised locations. She literally had people send classified information to the basement of her home.

Plus I'd argue that sending classified information to an insecure server is a far bigger threat to national security. Even if he got robbed on the way home the overall scope is lower than if the server gets broken into by foreign entities.

[superuser2]

>to an insecure server

Email is insecure regardless of who owns the server or where it's located. The government's own position is that emails in transit are postcards, not letters, and emails at rest are abandoned property, not personal papers and effects.

On the scale of how bad this is, plain old email on a private dedicated server is a 10/10, but plain old email on an @state.gov server would have been at least a 9/10. From an "endangering national security" perspective, we should be equally angry about everyone who used the official State email server for classified information.

It's not just information disclosure. Imagine the lulz to be had from the fact that the Security of State can't distinguish between an email from the President and any idiot who knows how to forge a FROM header.

Also, that time when it turned out that the State Department let the Russians have RCE on its email server for more than a year [1].

[1] http://gizmodo.com/state-dept-just-shut-off-part-of-email-sy...

[ethanbond]

Not sure what your argument is. Yes, all email is insecure. That's why it should have been transmitted over exactly zero email systems ever. Instead it was transmitted not only over email, but a remarkably insecure email whose existence was predicated by a desire to evade FOIA.

She's either remarkably inept, or remarkably shady (or both). I'm saying this all with the legitimate desire for her to win, and I'll be voting for her myself, but good lord at least be intellectually honest about what's happening.

[rincebrain]

The primary argument would be one of agency - while I agree that it was a terrible thing to have done, if she neither requested nor sent any (additional)* classified information from that system, it lacks the same kind of agency that a person explicitly taking classified data out of a secured location has.

* - additional here meaning that I wouldn't claim it to be deliberate to, say, reply to an email containing classified portions and leaving the classified portions in the reply.

[ChoHag]

Basically the difference between a bad thing happened and she did a bad thing.

I think it's fair to say a bad thing happened (secret documents through insecure channels) because she did a bad thing (setting up an insecure server linked to secure systems). There are multiple failures here and hers, especially considering her leadership[+] position, is one of them. Unfortunately you guys have a choice between two objectively bad candidates.

Good luck.

--

[+] You can't have trickly economics in only one direction.

[rdtsc]

> Nobody has managed to find any documents labeled as classified, let alone Top Secret.

Really? So you can just delete all the classification labels and send the document to a yahoo account. Look no labels, so it is fine? You better ask your friendly Security Officer about that (actually don't you'll be highly suspicious doing that).

She had 10 or so TS/SCI satellite images in there. Other people would go to jail for that...

She deliberately set up her own separate server, that wasn't an oops I slipped, one doesn't accidentally stumble and end up with a separate email server. Then classified documents up to TS/SCI were found on that server. Imagine an NSA or NRO employee doing that.

"So yeah, Jim, I just set up my own work email server at my house, just send work email there". "Oh, you found some satellite images there? You think you got me, however, see, classification markings are not there so it's fine"

[ChoHag]

> one doesn't accidentally stumble and end up with a separate email server.

Have managed email servers. Can confirm. Would be more likely to arrive at Mordor on foot.

> Imagine an NSA or NRO employee doing that.

Well, one kind of did, but we like him. He's one of us.

[caf]

The "just send work email there" bit seems highly inaccurate. It seems pretty clear that the intention was for this server to be used for unclassified communication. You can't even send email from a classified to an unclassified network without clearly marking it as such.

Now clearly it is at best highly naive to think that a server handling the kind of volume of email that the Secretary of State would receive, much of it from people handling classified information, is going to be able to stay 100% free of classified contamination.

[jwtadvice]

The existence of the email server to begin with blocked journalists attempts to investigate on State Department activities in Libya, and violated the FOIA Federal Law (a felony).

Partisan political actors are quick to redefine the problem as 'labeled as classified' and make claims about intentions, etc.

[cvwright]

Spilling the beans on classified information is still illegal, even if it's not properly portion marked in big capital letters.

[comex]

Yes, but the presence of three or so poorly marked emails among tens of thousands of them over four years does not do a great job of establishing intent - as opposed to this case, where the Booz employee was found with tons of presumably clearly marked classified documents.

[Someone1234]

Even the destruction of evidence is illegal. The State Department ordered her to return all emails, she had staff (incidentally without security clearance) delete tens of thousands of them.

The state department has recovered emails sent and received to her (for official functions) which she failed to turn over. This is in the FBI's report and also in the private lawsuit filed by the Republican group.