MrSmith1's picture

    Hand-wringing over Hillary ... ?


    Hand-wringing over Hillary ... or has she put herself into the political toaster? 

    The NY Times reports she used a private email account while Secretary of State ... The right wing is already blowing this up into a major scandal.  Is it?

    Is this the "revelation" that allows the GOP to run against McGovern ,,, err, Warren?

    OR  ... Is it just another in what will be a series of Captain Renault moments trumpeted by the GOP during the now off and running 2016 campaign? ("I'm shocked, shocked to discover there is gambling going on in this establishment.")

    What do you think? 

    i

    Comments

    No need to wring hands just yet.


    (yawn) On one hand, I think it's great that the NY Times is reporting this, because there are good reasons that political officials should not use private e-mail for public uses. Similarly, I try to avoid using private e-mail for work and vice-versa. (I have both on one computer, so occasionally a mistake happens, but I think I would be more careful if I were SoS. Also, I work from home. Also also, we're talking about a case where she exclusively used her private e-mail. CNN is reporting that she didn't even have a government e-mail address, although I'm a little skeptical about that.)

    On the other hand, I think this is partly because government adapts slowly, and by government standards, e-mail is still relatively new. (I know this might shock younger readers who cannot recall the days before e-mail.)

    So, yes, she should be scolded for using her private e-mail while SoS (or while Senator, which I assume also happened). Those working for her and those receiving her e-mails should have pointed out the inappropriateness of it. But frankly I have a hard time getting excited about it.

    Edit to add: I'm glad you posted this, though. It's good to know ahead of time what my Republican friends and family will be complaining about next on Facebook.


    Yeah, I did not post this because I found it particularly savory, and I'm not doing any hand-wringing personally.  The hand-wringing is being done by the pundits and the professional bloviators, and I felt from their tone this morning that this could easily be ratcheted up by the GOP noise machine to Benghazi status.    At the very least, Hillary will be tut-tutted by Fox News about this until at least November 2016, if not beyond.


    No doubt.


    I do not even know what 'private e-mail' means.

    In three days our national security is unfunded.

    There are wars, battles afoot all over the world, besides in Detroit.

    Drought and weather and imprisonment and beheadings and...

    I do not care.

    I don't even care what the right wing is saying about all this.

    Okay, that is enough.

    No more time on this silly issue.


    Well, it's not completely silly, just overblown. Private e-mail typically means that the e-mail is going to be stored by Google, Yahoo, Earthlink, or some other ISP. (The Clinton's have more than enough money that they might easily have their own personal e-mail server, but I don't know if they or their advisors are sophisticated enough technically to want this.) Government e-mail would be stored on a government machine.

    There are two reasons to require that government employees use government e-mail for government business:

    1. Security. Private e-mail would typically (but not necessarily) be less secure than government e-mail.
    2. Accountability. In sort of a dual of security, because the government has control of the server, the government can audit the e-mail.

    Some IT administrator should've quickly realized that Clinton was using private e-mail for government business, and should've schooled her and her aides on why it was a bad idea. Then, she should've only used government e-mail for government business. As far as I can tell, however, no one called her on it while she was doing it. Now, I'm not claiming that ignorance is an excuse, but it does mitigate, in my opinion.

    Edit to add: Part of my daily work is in computer system safety and security, so I don't want to pretend that what she was doing was OK. It wasn't. It's just not as uncommon as it should be.


    Now that you bring it up.

    How many e-mail accounts would this stateswoman have?

    One?

    No frickin way and I doubt she has time to even look at a keyboard. A person like this has a staff of many, many people and like you say, hacking does not discriminate that much.

    Say what you will, but this great woman is not stupid.

     


    Ignorance is NO excuse, you cant tell me she had forgotten all about brouhaha over the shredding of Documents related to Whitewater incident at the Rose Law Firm. 


    Here's an alternate take on the security angle, but the accountability angle is really the one the Republicans are more concerned about (and it is something to be concerned about).

    Edit to add: Of course, PP has already pointed out the Republican hypocrisy on this, but I think hypocrisy is part of the definition of politics.


    One of Biden's supporters described what Hillary is going through as death by a thousand cuts, and I think that pretty much sums it up.  I also think every Democrat, who simply assumed Hillary was a lock for both the nomination and election as President is suddenly whistling in the graveyard, praying this passes quickly and is forgotten.  My fear is that it won't be.  The transparency issue, fair or not, has been attached to the Clintons since the 90's.  This reinforces that perception and allows pundits to bring up every mis-step the Clintons ever made and make a case that this is a pattern that we, as a nation, don't wish to see repeated.  The silence from the base about this matter has been deafening.   No-one wants to speak about it, hoping it will go away on its own.  I don't think it will unless it's met head on with more than platitudes and triangulation.


    Well, the simple unavoidable truth is, she messed up. Whether it was an aide or herself personally, this is a violation of regulations if not of law. That others have messed up similarly is not a legitimate excuse. That said, it's not a sufficient mistake for me to not vote for her.


    Oh noes - another Al Gore-Buddhist Temple where he almost violated the *spirit* of the near-law. As Bob Somerby/Daily Howler notes, this is the path that led us into Iraq.


    Maybe it's just because of the field I'm in, but I see this as more than a mere peccadillo. That said, I approve of how she's handling it. (See my recent addition to "In The News".)


    Yes, I think she did 'mess up' and the story will continue even after her asking the State Dept to release her emails, because she won't just say what everyone assumes to be the truth; she made a mistake.  If she didn't make a mistake, come out and say directly and without any confusion, "I didn't mess up or break the law and here is why ..."  Instead she seems to be trying to finesse the situation with her call to have the emails released.


    Come out and say "I didn't mess up because the law or directive didn't exist yet"? I think that's been said. Just like Obama releasing his birth report.

    Let's step in the wayback machine and look at Susan Rice's statements on Benghazi - which were pilloried as blaming the video protests and not allowing the possibility of terrorists, which led to a year of Congressional "investigations".

    See how "come out and say directly and without any confusion" helps when fucktards are intent on misreading and mishearing despite clear evidence.

    MS. RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it’s important to know that there’s an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.

    But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

    We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

    Full transcript.

    CBS’s “Face the Nation”

    MS. RICE:  So we’ll want to see the results of that [FBI] investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy– –sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

    BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

    MS. RICE: We do not– we do not have information AT PRESENT that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

    MR. SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with [the previous guest, the president of Libya’s general national congress] that al Qaeda had some part in this?

    MS. RICE:  Well, we’ll have to find out that out. I mean I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.


    I see your point.  i had not taken the fucktards into consideration.

     

     


    I think the PoliSci term is "The Fucktard Factor" cheeky
     


    Come out and say "I didn't mess up because the law or directive didn't exist yet"? I think that's been said.

    Has it? Can you provide a link? (Right now my internet is incredibly slow due to damage to the fiber optic cable that usually provides me with connectivity.) As for the "law or directive" not existing yet, the regulation in question has existed since 2009. Hillary was Secretary of State until 2013, so from when that regulation was created until 2013, she should've been using a government account. That said, the fact that we're just now hearing about this, given that she'd already released e-mails relating to Benghazi (I think), shows that very few other people thought it unusual until it was pointed out.


    That seems unnecessarily forgiving of the hypocrites, and an easy escape clause for those without morals. You really think all politicians are hypocrites?

    Certainly trying to please many masters or constituents creates conflict and discontinuity both internally & externally, but that's not the same as people intentionally contradicting their word for profit, advancement or personal weakness.


    I do not really think that, and I'm not really that forgiving. It's just snark.

    I have definitely come to expect it from the Republicans, and I'll admit that I'm not surprised when it comes from Democrats, although I am disappointed.

    Edit to add: To say that I expect it from the Republicans is not to imply that I do not find it helpful to point out when the Republicans are engaging in hypocrisy. Pointing out such hypocrisy is useful and should be done.


    I don't want to worry about it. But I probably will anyway.

    I'd be really worried about this revelation if Anthony Weiner were to "weigh in" on it. 


    Didn't we decide it was okay when Karl Rove et al had all their emails on private machines? Or it conveniently became a problem when the Republicans were out of office and Democrats came in?

    Maybe Hillary got used to using private email when she discovered Republicans were illegally reading Congressional Democrats' email files, with as usual no repercussions?

    I suggest we have a Benghazi vs. Email Gate smackdown and eternal Congressional Investigation. All the hot air can be used to solve our energy problems.


    You know the  actual name 'Karl' makes me worry about his origin. I think this name tells us that he is a foreigner.

    I mean, does a guy with the name of 'karl' really care about my country?

    Just asking!


    You're right, DD!  Real Americans spell Carl with a "C", like Carl Sagan and Carl Icahn and Carl Jung.    Karl Marx was not a real American he was a Russkie!.  Karl Lagerfeld is a German!! Karl Malden? Well, okay he was American, he must of been because he worked for American Express ... but his parents?  AHA!


    I'm not sure Carl Jung was American. If he was he'd have spelled it Young. Probably Mexican, and an illegal immigrant


    I'm pretty sure you're thinking of Robert Jung who was on Father Knows Best.  Carl Jung was from Jungstown, Ohio.


    I could be wrong considering that Jung had an American city named after him. Especially since Jungstown, Ohio is an archetypal American city.


    Couldn't it be both? Some kind of eery... Synchronicity?


    I cannot leave this alone.

    hahahahahah

    This is better than SNL.

    hhahahahahahahah

    we have to preserve this discussion somewhere. hahahahah

    Honest to God, this stream is hilarious.

    And yet it will die.

    Just like me.

    hahahahah


    Oh no, Dick - as your mother said, you do run on & on - likely eternal. We'll name a star after you, and when that one flickers out, another. And another. And another...


    And like a stream, it will continue to flow ... for you and this thread, DD, are the fabric of our lives, and like sand through the hourglass, we will fall into a big lump at the bottom ... but never mind that.
     


    I just remembered that JEB when he was Governor of Florida had his own server that he did Florida business on for the 8 years he served.  He owned the server and the email was a private account.  He didn't use  state computer system.  

    There was a big hooplala just a few weeks ago about releasing emails into the public with private addresses on them from JEB's private account while he was governor.  That staffer resigned over that.

    There is no law against them for having a private account like that.  


    Yeah, but I'm not debating or questioning the legality or illegality of what she did.  Obviously, the more this is looked into, the less there is to see, but since when does that matter when you're in the midst of a media feeding frenzy?    Mass media doesn't do mea culpas anymore.  How many will admit they jumped to a false conclusion and write a story giving the boring factual explanation?


    I wrote about this on TPM, because my experience with "personal" email involves ads popping up in subsequent emails about subjects discussed in the text of what I had written (gmail). What I learned is what most of you here probably already know. Hillary has her own private, secure server, generated from her residence in NY. It is probably safer than most government servers, considering what we have been told.  

    It seems that all of her predecessors used their own personal email accounts as SoS (Condi Rice avoided email altogether, evidently). I have heard that the rules about that changed when Hillary got into office, and I have also heard that they had not yet changed.  It seems to me that if it was required for her to use a government server and email address, that would have been set up for her by an IT person. Evidently that did not happen. 

    Although it seems strange to me that she did use her personal account, I think it is only important in these senses:

    1.  Was the account truly secure?  (Probably)

    2.  Did she retain the emails for the purpose of transparency?  It seems like a dumb response that the email she sent to other government workers would have retained her parts of the correspondence.  Should the government have to track down her email through an uncountable number of back doors?  It appears that she is making them all available, but that brings me to #3:

    3.   Could she have selectively deleted any without any trace?  I don't know...hey, Verified, what say you?

    The bottom line on this is:  This snafu is not going to change anyone's mind about voting. I really like Joe Biden and I think he would be a good President.  I don't think he could be elected. Even though this is just one more example of a certain cluelessness that Hillary demonstrates from time to time, she has my vote. Who is going to vote for Jeb or Scott, or whatever drek the GOP throws at us because Hillary used the wrong email account? 

    One thing for sure, this is something the GOP loves.  We certainly have only ourselves to blame if we don't make a nice big list of every pol who uses his/her own server just to shut them up. 


    I think your analysis is spot on. To answer your question, she could selectively delete her e-mails without a trace if:

    1. her IT person knows what they're doing (in my experience most IT people don't);
    2. whoever she sent the e-mail to also deleted it; and
    3. the IT person of whoever she sent it to knows what they're doing.

    Note that truly deleting an e-mail is not as simple as clicking the "delete" button and remembering to "empty your trash", unless you have a more sophisticated e-mail program than most of us use. It has to be deleted from her machine, the server machine that holds it for her, and any intermediate servers that might hold on to it, typically including back up servers. I have a cousin whose company does forensic computing, for either the prosecution or the defense, and there are plenty of incompetent IT people who keep him in business.


    Thanks for your answer. Very interesting. I did read something since I left here; it was a reminder of all the Wikileaks email from State that got published. The thing is, if Hillary did this because she doesn't trust the government servers, she can hardly SAY that. So she has to just go with:  Well, everyone else did it too.

    Ran into this, and thought it was an interesting take as well--

    http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/03/04/3629650/hillary-clintons-pr...

    Ah, the old Chinese enemy's curse is truer than ever:  May you live in interesting times. 


    The NSA has a copy, whatever it is. Case closed.


    In all seriousness, I'd like to believe that the e-mail program she was using used 4096-bit RSA encryption as a default, which would be very difficult for the NSA to crack. (Impossible, most likely, unless they have a quantum computer that we haven't heard about, which is actually a possibility I wouldn't rule out.)

    Hmm. Actually, in thinking about it some more, in order for her to use encryption, the receiving party would also have to be set up with decryption software. Not unusual in business, but my experience with government agencies makes me think it's unlikely to be the default. (sigh) You'd be amazed at some of the stupid things they do. I know of one agency that will block encrypted zip files because they can't scan it for malicious content, where "malicious" is ridiculously defined. They block things they shouldn't while also allowing through things they shouldn't.

    Edit to add: even if all of her e-mails were fully encrypted, snoops would typically be able to know that e-mail was being sent, and to who it was being sent, unless Tor or something similar was being used in a very creative manner, which no one is suggesting in this case.


    I'd say there's a good chance that her computer among any was targeted by this algorithm.


    Wow. I had not heard about that. While an impressive result, it does require that the would-be hacker to be able to place a microphone close enough to the computer to pick up on all of its internal sounds (as the article says, not just the hard drive's sounds). That said, you're right that I wouldn't put it past the NSA to target high-level government officials.


    The reason I started this thread, was my frustration with the near silence I felt coming from our side of the aisle in the beginning.  I know the story has little merit, but ignoring it just lets it fester and grow in the Fox News world of phony breathless outrage which then spills over into mainstream media and becomes 'common perception.'   Where is that list?  I'd like to share it on my Facebook page.

     


    With all of our eggs in one basket, we can't afford to ignore or downplay any threat. This is not a small matter, and they-did-it-too is a weak defense at best. There are legitimate questions that need answers - before the truth gets buried by the Republican machine.


    Exactly.  Well said, Missy!


    Lest we forget about Scott Walker's email problems (which are intentionally illegal):

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/scott-walker-john-doe-investigation/

    a pretty good summary of articles, but they all seem dead in the water. 


    I was thinking about Walker this week.

    In the end, this strange eyed person will be quoted a thousand times during the next fifteen months and once some folks interrogate him, it will be all over.

    Walker shall be dead in the water.

    HOPEFULLY.

    hahahah


    I would be just as happy for Walker to stay under the radar and get the nomination. He has plenty of his own scandals (which show actual malfeasance), he has ruined Wisconsin, he is not intelligent OR smart and has no curiosity. His lack of foreign policy basics is pathetic. He is even less likable than Mitt. 


    Latest Comments