This Is Just Spiffy...

[Econoline]

This article (from a UK-based IT site) might help explain why it took so much less time than predicted to get through that latest bunch of emails.

Computer forensics defuses FBI's Clinton email 'bombshell'

[Econoline]

Neither Jim Comey, nor any "vast right-wing conspirator" put a gun to Hillary's head and forced her to set up an unauthorized server that stored classified information

Except that she didn't do that. Bill Clinton did it in 2001--and with good reason:

As the State Department inspector general concluded in its report on Clinton’s conduct, the guideline Clinton violated was a principle that “normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized Automated Information System.”

Using a private server violates that rule, but so would using a Gmail address or simply checking your State.gov email address from your personal laptop rather than a Department-issue one.

But while the use of a private server is legally irrelevant, it’s certainly unusual. And it leaves people wondering: Why did Clinton go out of her way to set up a private server?

Clinton, as you may have heard, is married to former president Bill Clinton, who stepped down from office in January of 2001. Clinton was in the White House throughout the 1990s when the rest of us were being bombarded with AOL signup CD-ROMs, so he didn’t have a personal email when he left. Gmail didn’t exist back then, and his new job was, in effect, running a Bill Clinton startup. He launched a charitable foundation, he established his presidential library, and he made big bucks on speaking tours. He had a staff and he needed IT infrastructure and support. So he paid a guy to set up an email server that he could use.

Hillary Clinton — who is, again, his wife — also set herself up with an account on the same server. This is a bit unusual, but a lot about being married to a former president is unusual. What it’s not is suspicious.

(Source. The whole article is worth reading; it debunks numerous myths and misconceptions about the whole email saga.)

[Lord Jim]

~sigh~

Okay, rather than "set up" let's change that to "use"...

And for the third time, I will post the State Department IG's conclusions:

Now the State Department IG joins the Intelligence Community IG, a federal judge, and the FBI in the Republican obsession over nothing:

State Department report slams Clinton email use

(CNN)A State Department Inspector General report said former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton failed to follow the rules or inform key department staff regarding her use of a private email server, according to a copy of the report obtained by CNN on Wednesday.

The report, which was provided to lawmakers, states, "At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act."

The report examined record keeping laws, policies and practices at the State Department from 1997 to present.

In producing the report, the Inspector General's office interviewed former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice.

Clinton and several of her staff members during her tenure declined to be interviewed, the report said.
The report draws attention to two staff members in the Office of Information Resources Management, who back in 2010 "discussed their concerns about Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email account in separate meetings with the then-Director" of their office.

The report says, "According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary's personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further." The same director reportedly "instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary's personal email system again."

But the report notes that interviews with officials from the Under Secretary for Management and the Office of the Legal Adviser found "no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff" of the server.

Clinton has long maintained that she had permission to use personal email.

She told CNN's Brianna Keilar in July that "the truth is everything I did was permitted and I went above and beyond what anybody could have expected in making sure that if the State Department didn't capture something, I made a real effort to get it to them."

But the report says that the Inspector General's office "found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server."

In a statement following the report's release, Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon, wrote that "While political opponents of Hillary Clinton are sure to misrepresent this report for their own partisan purposes, in reality, the Inspector General documents just how consistent her email practices were with those of other Secretaries and senior officials at the State Department who also used personal email."

But while the report acknowledges personal email use by previous secretaries, it also notes that the rules for preserving work emails sent from a personal email account were updated in 2009, the year Clinton took office.

More here:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/25/politics/ ... email-use/

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did break her department’s rules by setting up her own secret email server, the inspector general concluded in a report sent to Congress on Wednesday that says she failed to report hacking attempts and waved off warnings that she should switch to a more official email account.

Inspector General Steve Linick, appointed by President Obama, said he couldn’t find any evidence that Mrs. Clinton received approval for her odd email arrangement, and when lower-level staffers pressed the issue, saying she was skirting open-records laws, they were ordered “never to speak of the secretary’s personal email system again.”

In one instance in 2011, Mrs. Clinton’s tech guru thought the server was being hacked and shut it down for a few minutes. Months later, Mrs. Clinton feared yet another hack attack was underway — yet never reported the incident to the department, in another breach of department rules.

Mrs. Clinton refused to cooperate with the probe, as did a number of her top aides from her time at the department, leaving investigators with a number of questions they weren’t able to nail down.

Her predecessors as secretary of state — Madeleine K. Albright, Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice — did speak with investigators.

Mr. Powell, in particular, did use personal email for government business, and his records were not properly stored by the State Department, the investigation found. Democrats seized on that information to say it proved Mrs. Clinton was not blazing a trail of illegal behavior, but rather following the lead of her predecessors.

The inspector general, however, rejected that explanation, noting that at the time email was new, policies were “very fluid” and the department wasn’t aware of cybersecurity risks in the early part of the Bush administration. By the time Mrs. Clinton took office in 2009, those policies had been firmed up — and they preached exactly against Mrs. Clinton’s practice.

“Beginning in late 2005 and continuing through 2011, the Department revised the [manual] and issued various memoranda specifically discussing the obligation to use Department systems in most circumstances and identifying the risks of not doing so. Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives,” the inspector general wrote.

In the two years since the breach, Mrs. Clinton has turned over some 30,000 messages from her server that she said constituted government business. She withheld another 30,000 that she said were purely personal.

The inspector general said returning some of the messages in December 2014 — nearly two years after she left office — “mitigated” her behavior. But investigators said there are still troubling gaps in what she produced.

One email exchange mentioned in the report, which Mrs. Clinton did not turn over in her 30,000 messages, seemed to indicate that she intended for her system to hide communications from the public.

In the 2010 exchange, top personal aide Huma Abedin suggested that it was time to look into getting an official state.gov email address because Mrs. Clinton’s messages from her clintonemail.com account were landing in staffers’ spam folders.

Alternatively, Ms. Abedin said, Mrs. Clinton could release her secret address to the department so she could be designated as a verified account, keeping her messages out of spam folders.

Mrs. Clinton refused, saying she didn’t “want any risk of the personal being accessible.” [I think this is particularly damaging. It shows her primary concern being herself rather than her official responsibilities] being The inspector general at that point in the report notes that Mrs. Clinton refused to cooperate, and Ms. Abedin did not respond to a request to be interviewed.

More here:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... te/?page=2

How many times did Hillary repeat the now proven false claim that her email set up was allowed by the State Department? I've lost count...

[Gob]

Former President Bill Clinton’s top aide wrote in 2012 that Chelsea Clinton used Clinton Foundation resources “for her wedding and life for a decade” and a top Foundation donor was responsible for “killing” unfavorable press coverage – all as an internal Foundation audit uncovered numerous conflicts of interest and “quid pro quo benefits,” according to emails released Sunday by WikiLeaks.

[Lord Jim]

I have to say that I find this odd compulsion on the part of some Hillary supporters to try and hold her utterly blameless for the negative attitude that the majority of the electorate has about her honesty (despite the overwhelming body of evidence that supports this negative attitude) in its own way nearly as inexplicable as the insistence by the hardcore Trumpanzees that Trump "tells it like it is"....

[dales]

It's called "partisanship", Jim.

It should be classified in the DSM as a "Mental Disorder".

[Lord Jim]

Well Dale, there's "partisanship"...

And then there's, "blind partisanship"...

[BoSoxGal]

I've been fairly clear about my ambivalent feelings toward Clinton in that regard, I believe. But I also don't think she's any worse than any other mainstream politician, and in fact, PolitiFact rates her as more honest than most of the Republican field and FAR more honest than Trump. So there is that . . .

And there is also the fact that Herr Drumpf is an American Fuhrer in the making.

No, it is not too extreme to say that. My family is German-American, my 1st generation German-American grandfather fought his own German cousins in WWII. I know, I've probably told you that already I can't help it, with MS my brain is like Swiss cheese.

But the point is that the legacy of Hitler and the Holocaust is something that has weighed on me since childhood more than perhaps for some others here - excepting of course those of you related to Holocaust survivors. And mix into that the fact that my own father bears a striking resemblance to Drumpf, if you just added 15 more years of hatred, extreme bigotry, vitriolic speech and narcissistic grandiosity to Drumpf's present act.

So I know a little something something from firsthand experience about the German tendency toward uber-controlling narcissistic psychopathology - yes, I'll even admit that I have struggled with those awful inheritances from my paternal line myself, though as a person who my brown friends have dubbed "brown at heart", I am grateful for the grace of God or whatever else that I missed out on the ugliest of it, and only have struggles with OCD and too often thinking I'm right when I'm not or that I can tell other people the better way to do things.

I don't think people understand Trump like they should. I don't see why they don't look at his history of things he's said and advocated (like being dear friends with the Clintons, and praising Hillary Clinton highly in the past) and realize that this man is SERIOUSLY deranged. He will say anything at any time to get what he wants, he has no core values other than WINNING for himself and his own. He is amoral.

He does not care one little bit about you, or me, or any of his fellow Americans. He does not care about 240 years of democracy in the greatest system ever devised by humans. He does not care about anything but himself, and all of this is just a giant game to him, to feed his boundless ego - which is really only a cover for deep-seated and profound insecurity. The hard-wiring of his brain is a recipe for massive disaster should he gain the power of the most powerful person on Earth.

I visited the Holocaust Museum for the first time only a few years back; the first level wherein one follows the rise of Adolf Hitler has so many parallels to what we have seen over the course of Trump's rise it is eerily uncanny, IMNSHO. During those years did anybody think it would all end in another World War and the mass slaughter by the Nazis of 15-20 million* people? Does anybody really think the majority of good people in Germany would have allowed a man like that to rule them had they seen it coming?

NEVER. AGAIN.

*http://www.businessinsider.com/shocking ... ple-2013-3

[Burning Petard]

Well,some of refusal to say the Hillary e-mail and the Clinton Foundation are enuff to put Her in jail, is about fairness, a reflection of the strange absence of documentary evidence beyond the silly, for the Trump family charity, or the Donald's tax returns.

Please note the latest FBI revelation on the emails, that there is no there there. Nevertheless, the GOP congressional investigations will continue, along with the congressional reluctance to let the Executive branch of the government, including the military, purchase computer equipment that actually works without modem or floppy disc (only a partial exaggeration. The state department private servers were necessary because the government email system was damn-near impossible for anyone without an advanced degree in computer science to print a message without forwarding the message first to their own private email addy. You think all those Blackberries used by elected officials went exclusively thru government networks?)

snailgate

[Econoline]

Jim - I've never insisted that Hillary Clinton never lied about anything in regard to her email, and yes, her dishonesty does trouble me somewhat. However, if you pretend that she is somehow MORE dishonest than most politicians, and if you exaggerate her dishonesty by constantly repeating inaccurate information about what she actually DID do, you can expect me to call you out on it.

Yes, she continued to use an email address and an email server/provider which she had been using for 8 years before she became Secretary of State (and which she herself had no role in setting up). No, she apparently didn't get anyone's permission to do so. (BTW, I'm not sure whose permission she was supposed to get--the head of the State Dept.? Oh, wait...) It seems to me akin to a situation where a company with a strict suit-and-tie dress code hires a new CEO, who then proceeds to start showing up for work in jeans. (RHIP, and the lower ranks will always bitch about it...)

Also, to call it a "secret email address" (when she made no attempt to hide it and in fact used it constantly and gave it out to everyone who needed to contact her) is a disingenuous and cynical attempt to insinuate that there was a devious, surreptitious plot.

[RayThom]

Guess the president-elect who will say the following:

"In my first hour after being sworn in on January 20th I will look for a replacement for the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation."

[Bicycle Bill]

I remember reading Lois Lenski books back in the days when I was Tricycle Bill.

-"BB"-

[Bicycle Bill]

The bottom line on this remains what it has always been...

Neither Jim Comey, nor any "vast right-wing conspirator" put a gun to Hillary's head and forced her to set up an unauthorized server that stored classified information, nor did they force her to lie repeatedly about it to the American people...

That's all on her....

If Herr Drumpf is elected, she will deserve a heaping helping of the responsibility...

Once again this email issue has been shown to be nothing more than a tempest in a very small teapot.

But if this is enough to sway people away from Clinton and behind Trump — after all that he has said and done just during the campaign alone — then maybe this country deserves what they would be setting themselves up for.

At that point my most fervent hope would be that God takes pity on us during the following four years.

-"BB"-

[BoSoxGal]

But WE don't deserve this! Counting all the innocent children in this country who can't vote and shouldn't be punished for their parents' stupidity, surely we are many more than Drumpf's minion?

I'm outraged at the Republican Party for letting this happen, going back to that despicable Gingrich's 1994 Contract with America and the nurturing of the right wing crazy that morphed into even crazier tea party crazy and gave rise to an environment wherein they lost control of their nominating process.

I hope the voters elect Hillary and boot the GOP Congresscritters out en masse.

[Sue U]

So, now that James Comey has admitted that the BREAKING NEWS BOMBSHELL NEW CLINTON E-MAIL INVESTIGATION STOP THE PRESSES THIS IS YUGE MUST CREDIT FBI was a bunch of bullshit, and that there was never anything there to begin with, this raises some questions:

Was Comey's release of information in his October 28 letter a wilful attempt to influence an election and in violation of the Hatch Act, or was it merely reckless and "extremely negligent" management of his agency?

Will the FBI now open an investigation into the FBI to determine whether charges should be brought against Comey?

Will Congressional committees hold 13 6 2 any hearings to determine how Comey did Benghazi on Anthony Wiener's sexxxy dick-pic emails?

Will Hillary Clinton and her surrogates start shouting that Comey is corrupt and a criminal?

Will Clinton supporters start chanting "Lock Him Up!" at her campaign appearances?

Will Kellyanne Conway ever stop lying?

Also too, and not for nothing, in a campaign season whose end-date is absolutely the latest possible according to calendar math, was it really necessary to make it an hour longer by ending Daylight Saving Time this past weekend? That just seems gratuitous.

[BoSoxGal]

Will Kellyanne Conway ever stop lying?

Never, she's pathological. A special kind of evil, like Ann Coulter.


As to Comey, I agree with this perspective:

James Fallows - The Atlantic
7:48 PM / November 6, 2016
The Future of Mr. Comey

With his ill-advised intrusions into this year’s election, FBI Director James Comey has already damaged U.S. interests and the fabric of American democracy more grievously than even Hillary Clinton’s harshest critics could contend that her email-policies have done.

Damaged, how? I made the long-term case a week ago, after Comey’s reckless announcement about the Anthony Weiner emails. The shorter-term case is evident right now: No one can ever know how the 2016 election would have turned out—in ultimate victor, in margin and “mandate,” in the way specific states go, in down-ballot and Congressional effects—had it not been for Comey’s decision to put himself in the middle of charge and counter-charge.

We can’t ever know, because some 40 million people have already voted. We can’t ever know, because his latest last-minute announcement comes too late to be fully digested by the time everyone else votes on election day.

I have no reason to believe that Director Comey was operating out of base motives. He probably thought he was doing the right thing for the right reasons. But he was mistaken, and the results were damaging—to the country, to the political process, to the FBI and the Department of Justice, and to Comey himself.

***

In the hyper-litigious current political realm, the usual next step would be hearings and investigations—hearings like those on the deaths at Benghazi, investigations like the endless ones on email. American public life at the moment is all too hearings-bound and criminalization-crazy. Hearings or investigations into whatever has happened at the FBI would not be worth it for anyone.

So what, instead?

Hillary Clinton, if she wins, should not fire Director Comey. If she cares about the norms of governing, as she should and presumably does, she would realize that this would inescapably look like revenge and a purge.

For similar reasons, Barack Obama, who appointed Comey to this job in the first place, should not fire him. FBI directors are given 10-year terms precisely to insulate them from politics. Obama should observe the letter of that apolitical norm, even if Comey himself has not.

But as soon as the election is over, Obama should make clear, bully-pulpit style, what Comey has done wrong, and why Comey has tarnished his bureau’s reputation, lost Obama’s trust, and forfeited the public’s deference to his judgment.

And then, sometime soon, Comey should resign. He shouldn’t be fired, but if he cares about his institution and its values, he should recognize that his continued presence is an unavoidable source of continued harm.

Plus, he is sure to get a lucrative follow-on job.
We’ve had enough hearings and investigations. But this was a big and damaging mistake.

No one should fire Director Comey, because a firing would damage governing norms. But in defense of those norms, Director Comey should resign.

Let's see if Comey will do the right thing on his own.

[oldr_n_wsr]

was it really necessary to make it an hour longer by ending Daylight Saving Time this past weekend?

I blame the democrats and the republicans.
They did this on purpose just to punish us.

[Sue U]

Let's see if Comey will do the right thing on his own.

He should have tendered his resignation along with the announcement this past weekend, and also should have offered a heart-felt apology to the American people for the harm he has caused to his agency and to the nation's political process.

[BoSoxGal]

I agree; considering he's a former prosecutor I find his entire handling of the matter - including his editorializations back in July re: Clinton's actions utilizing the private server - to be reprehensible, as he *should* know better.

But then again, the more I got to know the character of many of my fellow prosecutors, the more sick at heart the American criminal injustice system made me, until finally it broke my body as well as my spirit. So I'm not at all surprised by his actions and I doubt very much he'll do the right thing, until a lucrative job offer is dropped in his lap.

And if Trump wins, he won't get one, because nobody will want to piss off Der Fuhrer Drumpf. But Der Fuhrer Drumpf is very vengeful, so Comey should probably start packing up his office Wednesday morning and squirreling his remaining paychecks into savings should The Donald win, because The Donald is ALL about revenge, even if he isn't ultimately harmed by the actions he considers as betrayals.