thepoint-Literally dipping out before your OT&BC? And you never answered my questions. I was really looking forward to you shutting me up, but I guess we'll just have the fond memories of that time you fantasized about killing a black dude, also the times we laughed about how you will never have a blood relative graduate from college.

Because they thought the information in those emails should be classified. How is this so difficult for you?

One example of overclassification is that supposedly one of the email discussions that was retroactively classified was about a newspaper article about drones. The discussion supposedly didn't add any information from classified sources, but apparently anything that admits to the existence of a drone program gets classified.

I think the security risk is being over-emphasized by those with political motives when the bigger concern should how a desire to avoid FOIA requests and skirt the edges of what is permitted by the Federal Records Act are evidence of Nixonian personality traits that lead to the opposite of transparency.

ok we're getting there...maybe.

do you acknowledge the possibility that THEY might've been right?

and if they were, does that mean that Hill had classified info on her toilet server?

Hillary having classified info on her server is not the point you want to make unless you don't know how email servers work. Snowden could send his entire cache of classified info to Hillary's basement server and it would not make her liable for it. You need to point out something illegal she did which so far would mean personally sending classified info. She admitted doing that but is disputing the info should be classified.

My understanding is that said documents may be restricted by caveat to prevent leaving a secured area, but that is not necessarily required.

Actually it makes the bar lower to hurdle. I place documents injurious to USA in a designated file cabinet, but I fail to lock the cabinet. I fail to lock the cabinet each day for months. Is that a crime?

I did, here it is again:

She allowed her server handling information injurious to USA to operate in the clear for 2 months.

My reading of the statute. You would have to find either
1. Hillary willfully (which implies she knew it was classified) sent classified info to someone who shouldn't have it or...
2. That her use of the server constituted gross negligence AND that someone got a hold of/hacked her server and stole information.

So, a couple guys, let's call them Larry and Sergey, have a big ol' email server. If I photograph a TOP SECRET document from the famous person in Roger's coffee shop example and email it to someone who has an account on that server, can I get Larry and Sergey thrown in jail? Asking for a friend.

to clarify: if Hill were to admit that the 2k emails in question did in fact contain classified info, but she never SENT any of them---she was only on the receiving end of 2K classified emails (all of which were on her homebrew server)--then she'd be in the clear? Politically and with the FBI?

Of course.

There was classified information in the emails sent to her email address, yes. That has been known and acknowledged since the very beginning.

I'm not sure if you need to prove that the information was stolen, or if by gross negligence that PERMITTED it to be stolen.

Obviously if one takes the proper safeguards, one would not be deemed to permit someone else from stealing that information. But if one does not take proper safeguards, does that imply one is permitting someone else from stealing information?

For many hackers an unsecured system is basically an open door from which to steal. The FBI may look at it that way.

I have no idea what this means. Before you try to clarify, don't bother if it's some more fan fiction you made up. The only meaningful response to me not understanding what you're talking about with this "caveat" is a citation to a law, you rephrasing how you imagine it might work... nobody gives a ****.

Not that I can see. How would it be? What law does that break?

OK so still some issues where you don't seem know how email works(many, many servers "handled" that information), but no, I need an actual action. Was the crime when she set up the server?

P.S. "in the clear" is another one of those phrases you might want to ease up on. Leaking classified information over a secured line is just as against the law as publishing it in the New York Times.

This is either a big admission or I'm missing something:

Are you acknowledging that Hill KNOWINGLY received classified information via a system (her homebrew server) that she knew was not government-approved/secure? And that she:

a. neglected to inform the proper authorities/intelligence community of its existence on her server; and

b. withheld such information from Jan. 2009 til Dec. 2014?

Quote from Wikipedia "Classified Information in the United States:"
Oh, I don't know, maybe permitting somebody who does not have the key to unlock the cabinet can now gain access to it?
The act is not instituting proper governance of the server, which allowed a lack of adequate protection when the server was setup (and I assume maintained) by Pagliano. I suppose you want to blame Pagliano for not setting it up properly?
Refer to the above Wikipedia article on allowable methods to secure transmission. I never used the word "leaking".

you can tap any time Roger. wait nm you were dead hours ago

Fly needs some things but you explaining lawyer **** to him isn't one of them.

Another kool aid drinker in our midst?

Sure, Hillary is innocent because... she is Hillary!

Maybe stick to point and type something more intelligent next time. Thanks.

Hillary can get off because she is dumb (irt server admin), I guess. But everybody says she's smart so that's the conundrum.

Something like that Bosnia plane landing under sniper fire, forcing her to run away from the plane. All of that documented, of course.

you may have noticed, well actually you seemed to purposefully miss, Fly's ability to ask simple questions directly. here they are

What laws were broken?

Ok and how?

and you haven't posted a suficient answer to either. cuz the honest answer is you don't know! and that's OK! what's weird is wikipediaing your way to an opinion on Espionage Act prosecution or whatever. you have a useful understanding of federal data security legislation? really? if so someone should tell you posts imo

By whom?

Remember to be specific.

I did, post #9737. Did you choose not to read it? USC 18 793
Post #9743 and #9758. She allowed her server handling information injurious to USA to operate in the clear for 2 months.

I did.

If you don't want to read, or read selectively and ignore the rest, that's fine. But blame yourself, not me.

person claiming they're smart at some things is not smart at all things?!

BRAIN CONFUSED, HULK SMASH

Not smart when it means something (e.g. getting off from an indictment).

"What is encryption?" How would I know what that techie stuff is? All I know is I got a server in my house and it works just fine!"

can you rephrase that in a more coherent-y fashion?

Not smart out of convenience, such as pleading ignorance for something she should have been responsible for, but lacked the requisite skills to either govern or perform such duties.

hilldawg is basically your grandma's age (likely). You think you can explain encryption to your grandma in a way that she'd comprehend wtf you were on about?