Posted on Jun 18, 2018
Yes, Hillary Should Have Been Prosecuted | National Review
832
18
15
5
5
0
Who else has sent TS/SAP on unclassified networks? Any one willing to confess and go directly to jail?
Yes, Hillary Should Have Been Prosecuted | National Review
Posted from nationalreview.com
Security
Law
FBI
Hillary Clinton
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 5
3
3
0
Not me... But I too can't let this go as the article stated. I spent a good part of my career advising leaders at various levels on their responsibilities, with regards to securing their data, protecting classified information, and the duties of the Authorizing Officials for their IT infrastructure. That duty fell on Clinton when she assumed the role of Sec or State. She is allowed to delegate it one level down (which is typically done) to her CIO. The fact she had the server built in the first place was against the law, and her CIO should have known this and advised her against it. If continued, the CIO should have put it in writing directly to Clinton and eventually reported the existence of the servers.
On top of that, there is a Records Management issue here where she is required to retain and protect all official records in accordance with DoD rules (which have legal repercussions if not adhered to). That alone should have at a minimum prevented her from ever holding a government position again (to include the office or the President of the US). It is a proven fact that she both authorized the creation of the servers and allowed official records to be destroyed when she had the servers wiped.
Fortunately, the voters ultimately corrected part of the problem, but she still needs to be held accountable.
On top of that, there is a Records Management issue here where she is required to retain and protect all official records in accordance with DoD rules (which have legal repercussions if not adhered to). That alone should have at a minimum prevented her from ever holding a government position again (to include the office or the President of the US). It is a proven fact that she both authorized the creation of the servers and allowed official records to be destroyed when she had the servers wiped.
Fortunately, the voters ultimately corrected part of the problem, but she still needs to be held accountable.
(3)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
Did you advise them on how many time they were allowed to amend their SF87 forms after previously undisclosed foreign contacts were revealed? How many time can an individual do that?
Or how about the use of a private server, or one, say, hosted by a political party.... say, the GOP, where up to 22 million emails could go missing? Do record management regulations only apply to Democrats? Inquiring minds want to know.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html
Or how about the use of a private server, or one, say, hosted by a political party.... say, the GOP, where up to 22 million emails could go missing? Do record management regulations only apply to Democrats? Inquiring minds want to know.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html
(0)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
MSgt Steve Sweeney - I never dealt with that side of security. I'm a cyber expert and I spent a significant portion of my career advising on the Information Assurance side of policy and the law.
That said, as a military brat and someone who grew up around the State Department, worked with the State Department, and having made foreign contacts of my own (through my military career), I can absolutely see how one could overlook some of their contacts, not be sure which ones need to be named, which ones don't, and when you need to amend your foreign contact declarations. As far as I know you can keep updating it as long as your doing so in good faith. If you neglect someone significant, you can expect your clearance to undergo issues.
A server that belongs to a political party is not a government system and is not bound by government information assurance or records management policies and laws as Clinton's server should have been. Clinton built and used HER servers (not the DNC's) for the expressed purpose of conducting her government business. That in itself is illegal per the Clinger Cohen Act. This isn't to say you can't use private email for government business, but the rule states it is to be done sparingly if there's no other way (i.e. flexibility). By doing, those emails are subject to government scrutiny and they are well within their rights to order you to give them your account if its significant. What Clinton did was build a server for her government business, failed to protect it, and willfully allowed her staff to wipe the servers after there was a legal subpoena issued for the drives. By the way, CLASSIFIED email on your own private server is also very illegal and it highlights the reason why you should be conducting your government business on government servers. It would make my life easier, to clean up your mess when there's a spillage.
The server you speak of with regards to President Bush were for political campaign business and it was required of him to use these servers for that reason (by law). See the Hatch Act for more details if you like. Essentially, you are not allowed to use government servers to conduct political campaign business. These articles like to confuse the situation by claiming what Bush did was the same. It wasn't, nor has that ever been proven. It has for Clinton, and regardless of whether Bush did something illegal here or not (which is just an opinion, not based on fact), it still does not vindicate Clinton. So, if you feel these situations are the same (even though they are not), then that means you agree that Clinton broke the law. Right?
The fact is, neither issue is even remotely the same.
That said, as a military brat and someone who grew up around the State Department, worked with the State Department, and having made foreign contacts of my own (through my military career), I can absolutely see how one could overlook some of their contacts, not be sure which ones need to be named, which ones don't, and when you need to amend your foreign contact declarations. As far as I know you can keep updating it as long as your doing so in good faith. If you neglect someone significant, you can expect your clearance to undergo issues.
A server that belongs to a political party is not a government system and is not bound by government information assurance or records management policies and laws as Clinton's server should have been. Clinton built and used HER servers (not the DNC's) for the expressed purpose of conducting her government business. That in itself is illegal per the Clinger Cohen Act. This isn't to say you can't use private email for government business, but the rule states it is to be done sparingly if there's no other way (i.e. flexibility). By doing, those emails are subject to government scrutiny and they are well within their rights to order you to give them your account if its significant. What Clinton did was build a server for her government business, failed to protect it, and willfully allowed her staff to wipe the servers after there was a legal subpoena issued for the drives. By the way, CLASSIFIED email on your own private server is also very illegal and it highlights the reason why you should be conducting your government business on government servers. It would make my life easier, to clean up your mess when there's a spillage.
The server you speak of with regards to President Bush were for political campaign business and it was required of him to use these servers for that reason (by law). See the Hatch Act for more details if you like. Essentially, you are not allowed to use government servers to conduct political campaign business. These articles like to confuse the situation by claiming what Bush did was the same. It wasn't, nor has that ever been proven. It has for Clinton, and regardless of whether Bush did something illegal here or not (which is just an opinion, not based on fact), it still does not vindicate Clinton. So, if you feel these situations are the same (even though they are not), then that means you agree that Clinton broke the law. Right?
The fact is, neither issue is even remotely the same.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin - Maybe it wasn't "proven" because it was never really investigated. Sure it was only used for "campaign purposes". The Iraq campaign maybe?
Yeah, I am sure they just "forgot" meeting with all those Russians during the campaign. It was so long ago.
If Clinton broke the law, and you have sufficient evidence to indict, by all means do so. Poop or get off the pot and stop beating this dead horse - it ain't going anywhere. Besides, when the same people that are all wrapped up about the Secretary of State having a private server are the same people that openly embrace and actively encourage Wikileaks (as Trump did) when it supports their agenda, I find their deep and abiding concern for OPSEC and security protocol to be disingenuous at best.
Yeah, I am sure they just "forgot" meeting with all those Russians during the campaign. It was so long ago.
If Clinton broke the law, and you have sufficient evidence to indict, by all means do so. Poop or get off the pot and stop beating this dead horse - it ain't going anywhere. Besides, when the same people that are all wrapped up about the Secretary of State having a private server are the same people that openly embrace and actively encourage Wikileaks (as Trump did) when it supports their agenda, I find their deep and abiding concern for OPSEC and security protocol to be disingenuous at best.
(0)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
Actually, they did investigate and the 22M emails were also recovered off of back up tapes. They found nothing.
A meeting with a Russian does not necessarily require you to change your contacts list. There are several factors required.
But you're already implying she did by comparing your perception of what you think Bush did to her situation. Trump isn't encouraging Wikileaks and neither do I. What they did was illegal and whoever leaked it to them needs to go to jail. But my feelings and Trump's feelings for Wikileaks does not negate the significance of the information they released. Put simply, it can't be ignored. The US government is still trying to detain Assange, and we are still trying to figure out how the information was captured in the first place. But this issue also highlights the point as to why Clinton acted irresponsibly (and even illegally in my opinion). By building her servers, she put our government information at risk, without the proper security control, and with no oversight. Do you ever ask yourself why? Do you really believe it was purely for convenience? The DNC is no better. they were warned by the FBI that their servers were getting a lot of very suspicious attention and that they were likely getting hacked. They offered help and the DNC refused. Why would they do that?
So, I don't care whether you think Trump is being honest about OPSEC and security or not. He's right. The leaks need to stop and we should absolutely be making an example of Clinton for her very bad decision to build her own IT infrastructure, free of mandated government oversight and protection standards.
A meeting with a Russian does not necessarily require you to change your contacts list. There are several factors required.
But you're already implying she did by comparing your perception of what you think Bush did to her situation. Trump isn't encouraging Wikileaks and neither do I. What they did was illegal and whoever leaked it to them needs to go to jail. But my feelings and Trump's feelings for Wikileaks does not negate the significance of the information they released. Put simply, it can't be ignored. The US government is still trying to detain Assange, and we are still trying to figure out how the information was captured in the first place. But this issue also highlights the point as to why Clinton acted irresponsibly (and even illegally in my opinion). By building her servers, she put our government information at risk, without the proper security control, and with no oversight. Do you ever ask yourself why? Do you really believe it was purely for convenience? The DNC is no better. they were warned by the FBI that their servers were getting a lot of very suspicious attention and that they were likely getting hacked. They offered help and the DNC refused. Why would they do that?
So, I don't care whether you think Trump is being honest about OPSEC and security or not. He's right. The leaks need to stop and we should absolutely be making an example of Clinton for her very bad decision to build her own IT infrastructure, free of mandated government oversight and protection standards.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Col Joseph Lenertz Great comment. If you get a lot of Confessions I am sure 902d would like to talk to them. You might get interviewer of the year award!
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google