[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.