Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re: What a clusterfuck (Score 1) 676

They were hired by the office of the Secretary of State, who is in fact a "layer of the government".

NO. They were NOT. The contract that they were hired under was private commercial from Bill and Hillary, probably thru their foundation, not government. from the article posted here (and as has been posted with more clarification at other places) : http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

Bill and Hillary Clinton hired Platte River in 2013 to manage the email server after one originally built for her 2008 campaign broke down several times, people familiar with the email server told the Post.

Please note the word campaign, which suggests it was when she was running for President, before even being considered for SecState.

Correct, but I didn't say "removing the classification designator". I said "removing the classification" or "de-classifying". The law says you can't do so for political reasons, but let's face it, 90%+ of all classifications are for political reasons. And 100% of public declassifications are for political reasons. The rules are lip service that take a back seat to the political realities of our government.

While there is truth in this, the point is legally moot. You cant go to court and defend your theft of a car by saying that the guy who bought it did so with stolen money. Just because Hillary (in your example) would use a "it should never have been classified in the first place" defense is a weak and rather ridiculous argument. It doesnt really matter. Could it be considered as a mitigating factor in the punishment? Sure. But it doesnt mean that crimes were not committed.

Comment Re: What a clusterfuck (Score 1) 676

When I was in the military working IT at HQMC in Quantico, VA, I had top secret clearance. I worked in a shop that was 50/50 Marines/Contractors. All of the contractors also had top secret clearance. So yeah, I would expect that Platte River Networks would have a vetted staff with clearance assigned to manage her email server.

Platte River wasn't hired by any layer of government! So there was no government security background check applied at all. Hillary (or more likely here non-government staff) likely have a contract with this company that says all kinds of things. But even if they did a background check privately it wouldnt allow access to many government records used by federal background investigations. I dont meant to imply that these people at Platte River arent 100% trustworthy. But I am saying taht they are not granted federal clearance at any security level, let alone top secret compartmented.

If the classification is removed, then it's not an issue. Even if it's post-hoc. Classifications aren't set in stone, they change over time as context changes.

Wrong. Removing the classification designator on a document is in itself a felony. Copying data from a classified source and putting into another unclassified document is a felony. The only way that classified data can be shared outside of controls is if the document is officially declassified. And even then it could still be considered sensitive and remain within govrnement unless officially cleared for public release. So no matter what else occurs here, whoever sent Hillary email with classified data in an unclassified format is guilty of a felony. That's entirely unambiguous and undeniable.

As for your heart warming story about the marine who was guilty of multiple abject failures out self-importance and laziness, that kind of stupid bullshit is exactly why we get 20 million governement employee profiles hacked and exposed. None of the changes you described should have been possible without being put before a change control board and approved. And anyone that thinks that they are more important than the controls specifically put into place to avoid potentially catastrophic impacts should be fired at minimum.

Comment Re: What a clusterfuck (Score 1) 676

It's been almost 15 years since I got out of the military and left the DC corridor, but I would venture a guess that YES, her staff, including her IT staff, would have at a minimum secret if not top secret clearance.

I'm not talking about Hillary's State Dept staff. I'm talking about the IT company that the FBI has identified as the one that was managing her server/email. That company is Platte River Networks, and the account under which this service was being handled was private, not government.

So unless you're trying to convince us that Hillary Clinton required the staff of Platte River Networks to undergo a Top Secret Compartmentalized level (which is what at least one email is said to have contained, even though the classification appears to have been removed) security background investigation, then your argument falls short.

That part of your statements aside, there have been more than a few career federal employees who have lost their jobs, been fined and worse for exactly the kind of spill we're talking about here. Even if she didnt send anything and was only the recipient, she was negligent in producing a situation in which potential secret and higher communication had only this avenue of delivery, simply because she was too damn lazy and self-important to have 2 devices. Anyone's opinion of Hillary personally should be set aside, on both sides of the fence. If she broke the law, then she broke the law, period and end of story. She shouldn't' get a pass because she's a former First Lady, or because she's rich, or because she's a raging bitch, or bakes a kickass lasagna or can do a spinning slam dunk on a regulation net.

When did we become so complacent about a different set of rules for America's self-appointed royalty?

Comment Re: What a clusterfuck (Score 4, Insightful) 676

If it would have been ignored and we passed by it, then there would have been ANOTHER disservice to the American people. Any other non-politician/celebrity that did what she has done, even if they came out immediately and apologized, we have faced a range of repercussions ranging from termination to imprisonment. Why should Hillary be treated differently than any other average American?

Comment Re: What a clusterfuck (Score 1) 676

That is totally false. You can mix classified and unclassified on the same device. You just cant allow a "spill" of classified information into a space that is unclassified AND which people not cleared to few it can get to it.

Which is an entirely different ball of shit that no one is talking about. If there's classified data on her server, then every person who managed that server likely had the ability to get to the information. Have they been cleared? If no, that's another level of security breach.

Comment Re:What a clusterfuck (Score 1) 676

That's not how classification works. Stamp or no, if the information contained within is considered classified, the format that it exists in is classified. Providing Top Secret Compartmented information to the press who then prints it in the newspaper doesnt make the information unclassified. It makes the newspaper guilty of printing classified information.

Comment Re:Likely misdemeanor mishandling of classified in (Score 1) 434

These records management REQUIREMENTS are outlined in NARA (National Archive and Records Administration: http://www.archives.gov/about/...). Every federal employee is subject to these statutes. The only ambiguity could possibly be the interpretation of an official about what constitutes a federal record, and whether they can lawfully destroy the record. But I dont think any rational human being would consider a 2 month gap in the records of the for a Secretary of State, preceding an attack on an Embassy and assassination of an Ambassador, for instance, to be a coincidence. It is utter lunacy to argue that no important communication or decisions occurred by the Secretary in that period. Which means that (proven by the following LAWS) that the Secretary and the State Dept FAILED to properly retain official government records, punishable (as outlined and proven in the provided statutes) by law.

Records Management by Federal Agencies
44 U.S.C. Chapter 31
3101. Records management by agency heads; general duties
The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.

(My Notes: Please note the unambiguous "SHALL". It is not optional. It is not open to interpretation.This section alone is meant to ensure by law that no information that is/was integral to the course of government activity be destroyed. Period. End of story.)

3103. Transfer of records to records centers
When the head of a Federal agency determines that such action may affect substantial economies or increased operating efficiency, the head of such agency shall provide for the transfer of records to a records center maintained and operated by the Archivist, or, when approved by the Archivist, to a center maintained and operated by the head of the Federal agency.

(My notes: Not only may an agency not destroy the data, the agency MUST ensure that the records are provided to the National Archives for possible PERMANENT retention.)

3105. Safeguards
The head of each Federal agency shall establish safeguards against the removal or loss of records the head of such agency determines to be necessary and required by regulations of the Archivist. Safeguards shall include making it known to officials and employees of the agency--
(1) that records in the custody of the agency are not to be alienated or destroyed except in accordance with sections 3301-3314 of this title, and
(2) the penalties provided by law for the unlawful removal or destruction of records. 3106. Unlawful removal, destruction of records
(a) FEDERAL AGENCY NOTIFICATION.—The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, corruption, deletion, erasure, or other destruction of records in the custody of the agency, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records the head of the Federal agency knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from that agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to the legal custody of that Federal agency.
(b) ARCHIVIST NOTIFICATION.—In any case in which the head of the Federal agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action described in subsection (a), or is participating in, or believed to be participating in any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.

Disposal of Records
3301. Definition of records
(a) RECORDS DEFINED.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—As used in this chapter, the term “records”—
(A) includes all recorded information, regardless of form or characteristics, made or received by a Federal agency under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the United States Government or because of the informational value of data in them; and
(B) does not include —
(i) library and museum material made or acquired and preserved solely for reference or exhibition purposes; or
(ii) duplicate copies of records preserved only for convenience.
(2) RECORDED INFORMATION DEFINED.— For purposes of paragraph (1), the term recorded information includes all traditional forms of records, regardless of physical form or characteristics, including information created, manipulated, communicated or stored in digital or electronic form.
(b) DETERMINATION OF DEFINITION.—The Archivist’s determination whether recorded information, regardless of whether it exists in physical, digital, or electronic form, is a record as defined in subsection (a) shall be binding on all Federal agencies.

3302. Regulations covering lists of records for disposal, procedure for disposal, and standards for reproduction
The Archivist shall promulgate regulations, not inconsistent with this chapter, establishing--
(1) procedures for the compiling and submitting to the Archivist of lists and schedules of records proposed for disposal,
(2) procedures for the disposal of records authorized for disposal, and
(3) standards for the reproduction of records by photographic, microphotographic, or digital processes with a view to the disposal of the original records.

3303. Lists and schedules of records to be submitted to the Archivist by head of each Government agency
The head of each agency of the United States Government shall submit to the Archivist, under regulations promulgated as provided by section 3302 of this title--
(1) lists of any records in the custody of the agency that have been photographed, microphotographed, or digitized under the regulations and that, as a consequence, do not appear to have sufficient value to warrant their further preservation by the Government;
(My Notes: So even if you dont THINK it's important and you destroy it, you have to provide a list of what you destroyed.) (2) lists of other records in the custody of the agency not needed by it in the transaction of its current business and that do not appear to have sufficient administrative, legal, research, or other value to warrant their further preservation by the Government; and
(3) schedules proposing the disposal after the lapse of specified periods of time of records of a specified form or character that either have accumulated in the custody of the agency or may accumulate after the submission of the schedules and apparently will not after the lapse of the period specified have sufficient administrative, legal, research, or other value to warrant their further preservation by the Government.

(My notes: You can go and read more if you like. It's all quite clear. But I dont know why I've even bothered to plaster this here for you. You wont read it either, and even if you do you'll brush it all away and come up with more excuses for why the LAW doesn't apply to your precious, deceitful, unethical, lying, professional politician. Is that because you think she's been so valuable to the nation of the decades (by succeeding in no real accomplishment beyond being elected/appointed), or simply because she has a vagina and you desperately want a woman in the White House? )

Comment Re:Likely misdemeanor mishandling of classified in (Score 1) 434

Are you willfully this ignorant? Or just so fully in the bag for Hillary that you're willing to say anything at all to defend her, no matter how bad the situation gets? At what point will you admit that, at the very least, there are things here that don't look good for her?
We're not talking about placing blame for a fart in church here. We're talking about a Congressional investigation about the DEATH OF A U.S. AMBASADOR.

Comment Re:Likely misdemeanor mishandling of classified in (Score 1) 434

Yes. And that's why it is illegal to remove any facts associated with a warrant or subpoena. The subject of an investigation doesnt get to choose which facts he/she thinks are relevant and hide or destroy the rest. Law enforcement and the judge/court/CONGRESS that issues the warrant or subpoena do. And any act that appears to circumvent that process is in itself an act of deviance of the legal process.

And it's not supposed to matter if you're a former Secretary of State, or a Senator, or a janitor, or a former gang member with half a dozen felony convictions.

There's a phrase for this very process in government: Litigation Hold.
When Congress or a court litigating a lawsuit issues a warrant or a subpoena, the whole system in which the data exists is frozen. Period. Every document, email, memo, system eventlog down to when the machines were patched, and who last launched a web browser from them. And from that point forward any person who so much as logs in to the system to look has to be specifically and separately cataloged and the event recorded to ensure the highest levels of "chain of custody" which are then provided to the requesting body. This is to ensure that no evidence is being tampered with, and any data there is later determined to be relevant by the officials doing the data search. You often cant even add data to the machine after the fact, depending on the severity of the case. .

Comment Re:Likely misdemeanor mishandling of classified in (Score 1) 434

And we're supposed to take whose word on that exactly? That's like saying that if the police have a warrant to search your house for some incriminating documents, and you are burning some in your fireplace as they come through the door they should be perfectly satisfied when you say, "Well, yes, but I only burned things you wouldnt be interested in.".

When you make your mark in the world, watch out for guys with erasers. -- The Wall Street Journal

Working...