back to article Just a friendly reminder there were no at-the-time classified secrets on Clinton's email server. Yes, the one everyone lost their minds over

The US State Department has delivered its report [PDF] into Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email system and, amazingly enough, there wasn't anything scandalous nor classified on it at the time. But for the private server, Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State would have been exemplary and her presidential run calmer. …

  1. InsaneGeek

    Ummm... missed a very big thing there

    The part with after being served and official subpoena, going through and then deleting emails. That's something that would have gotten any corp into the bankruptcy type fee... multi-million dollar fines have come about from just not having a proper retention tool. Like most things it's not the action that's the big oops, the coverup is. If her team would have just complied with the subpoena it would have been over and done with, but no her team tried to make things orders of magnitude worse and delete emails after receiving a legal document. In the end the emails were recovered but because of her teams stupid action, giving the courts the very real reason to drag out the issue to do an uber thorough screening, and release them to the public.

    Your article should have been about how her teams lack of using proper email retention tools, and playing dangerously with legal subpeona's can put you at risk in the biggest issues ever (Presidential election) even if there is nothing bad in it.

    1. DryBones

      Re: Ummm... missed a very big thing there

      You missed the part about the Republicans doing just the same thing? You wrote a page of manufactured outrage.

      1. InsaneGeek

        Re: Ummm... missed a very big thing there

        Umm... what outrage? I said that the article should have been about the technical aspect of it, and how you can have nothing incriminating in the emails but because you didn't follow due care can bite you in the ass.

        The outrage I have is how stupid her team was to shoot themselves in their own foot. If they would have simply turned over everything at the beginning, it would have blown over, but no they deleted emails which then gave the impression of a coverup. After they started recovering the deleted emails it was dragged out forever and a day, instead of being over and done with earlier in the election, it was dragged out till the very end. The email debacle is of her own teams issue, it would have blown over early, it would have gone away but no her team responded like idiots and cost her the election.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ummm... missed a very big thing there

        Ahh, whataboutism.

        *You* missed the part about the Republican National Committee not being the same as the Secretary of State. The two are very different animals, as is the amount of classified material handled, and the national and international consequences should their IT infrastructures be breached.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ummm... missed a very big thing there

        and Seth Rich?

    2. Gordon 10
      FAIL

      Re: Ummm... missed a very big thing there

      Thats a pretty silly comment imo. Since the whole of the existence of the mail server was a policy violation, why on earth would there be a requirement to put a retention tool on it?

      You seem overly fixated on the tech and the only valid point you make is about the deletion of evidence which was a biggy. You should have stopped your comment there.

      1. InsaneGeek

        Re: Ummm... missed a very big thing there

        Yes I'm overly fixated on the technical aspect of it... since this is primarily a TECH site not a political site. Because if they would have followed due care aspects of things it wouldn't have been dragged out for months and months. It would have been a blip on the election radar instead it was dragged out till the last days of the election.

        One needs to think about their own risks if they are managing an email system and how they would respond to getting a subpoena, and this is like a text book example of how not to respond to it.

    3. james7byrne

      Re: Ummm... missed a very big thing there

      The other big point is why did she have an email server in the first place? She was supposed to use a secured State Department server. Think about your own job. How would your employer like it if you stop using corp email for business communication and put a linux sendmail server in your basement? You would be told to follow corporate policy or get fired. She had her own email server so she could side step e-discovery by government auditors.

  2. veti Silver badge

    Oh gods, not this again

    Cue the endless, mindless ranting about double standards, the deep state covering up, "most corrupt politician"... Have we not had enough? Why troll the trolls yet again?

    Let it die already. Nobody cares.

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: Oh gods, not this again

      Why troll the trolls? Simple ... Because the mindless ones will click & scream, and get replied to, and click on that and scream, and get replied to, and click and scream, and get replied to ad infinitum. Or was that ad nauseam?

      This'll be quite the little revenue generator for ElReg by morning :-)

    2. Mark 85

      Re: Oh gods, not this again

      It won't die. That's just it. Certain people will bring this up over and over ad infinitum ad nauseam. This is politics we're dealing with where things just don't die.

      1. Draco
        Unhappy

        I'm not so sure

        I can (cynically) think of a few things that do die in politics: truthfulness, integrity, common sense - to name a few.

        1. baud

          Re: I'm not so sure

          I don't think they've ever been alive in politics to begin with!

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Oh gods, not this again

        The only thing that dies with the Clintons are a surprisingly large number of their former associates and coworkers.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Nobody cares

      I'm sure that Trumpton will bring 'Jail Hillary' out of the slogan bag [1] if the going gets tough next year.

      It is guaranteed to fire up his faithful into a feeding frenzy akin to the Salem Witchfinder General.

      He could go much further with his hatred for LGBT and the right to life people will be making sure that they are not forgotten in their quest to get Abortion made illegal (for any reason).

      IMHO, she should have just remained quiet this time around. The Democrats really need to have one voice in order to stop Trumpton getting a second term. At the moment, they are a rabble.

      Mind you the GOP is as well. Where is the credible alternative to 'theRealDonald'? They need one in case he performs badly in the primaries.

      [1] along with Mexico will pay for the wall.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Nobody cares

        The key to understanding the situation is that:

        The consultants that are the 'brains' (small and limited as it is) for the Democrats maybe does not exactly want Donald Trump to win (this time, Google 'Pied Piper Strategy') but they still want to lose to Someone. Why do they want to lose, one may ask?

        They want to lose because that way they can collect huge globs of money from their donors, who are presumably getting more desperate to get a different regime, without doing any of the tedious political work required should they gain a political majority. Right now, all they have to do for "work" each and every day is to scream "Russia, Russia, Russia" at everyone (even their own candidates) for a while, then they can sod off for the afternoon.

        They like that situation. Want it to continue for another 6 years, so they will value-signal very loudly about How Haaaard they are totally struggling to get rid of Donald Trump while running a parade of losers for President and sabotaging those that could beat Donald Trump. If Donald Trump somehow does badly enough, they will run Hillary herself again to guarantee the loss, they don't even have to tell her what the game is, just Blame Putin for eating the homework. Like last time.

        The Republicans, OTOH, they want to win and they don't give a shit how and why and whatever the hell for!

        I.O.W: We are Doomed!!

        1. Gordon 10
          FAIL

          Re: Nobody cares

          Thats a total fail. Politicians of any stripe dont want money - they want Power - which makes your entire theory null and void.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Oh gods, not this again

      OF COURSE this again because Hillary's supporters want to throw blame on ANYONEfor her losing the election. Evil Russians! Partisan attacks! (which the Clintons excel at by the way). ANYTHING but She Blew It. Lefties NEVER lose because the people don't want them, oh no!

      But they will NEVER let it die.

      1. The_Idiot

        Re: Oh gods, not this again

        @anonymous Coward - Is this where people get to remind you that, according to the popular vote, 'the people' _did_ want her, it was the Electoral College that didn't? Or am I in the wrong illogical-expression-of-personal-opinion thread?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Oh gods, not this again

          'The people' did not want her. Just the people in a couple of states.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Oh gods, not this again

        The only people still screaming about Clinton losing the election are the neo-Nazis and White Supremacists - those folks Trump takes a liking to.

        The rest of world says Trump is a piece of you-know-what because he is a piece of you-know-what. You know: a pawn of Putin, a lover of the North Korea dictator, has the writing level of an 8-year old, totally immoral, worst businessman in US history, malignant narcissist,. biggest liar ever,... When one thinks about a Stable Genius with Unmatched Wisdom, Trump is about the last person they'd be thinking about.

        I'd suggest you should get over your Clinton bashing, but darn, that's all you have.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Red Herring

    Irrelevant if the email was secret or not. If any government or company employee had bypassed the official email system for official business to that extent they’d be fired and even locked up. Why should politicians be somehow exempt?

    1. Adrian 4

      Re: Red Herring

      Because if they fired and locked up every politician that did something illegal there wouldn't be any left.

      Now, you and I might think that would be a good thing. But not the people who make decisions about it, because they're more of the same.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. GnuTzu

        Re: Red Herring

        Yes, business content needs to be where it can be managed according to policy. Do executives think are subject to policy, or do they think they're above it? Are you kidding; I've seen the DLP reports.

        Fortunately, most of what I've seen are executives dumb enough to put their own PII in their work email. Things like their personal mortgage applications are just not worth my time--though it would be enough to sell their identity on the dark web if I wasn't a strict white-hat. Yet, I do get to laugh my ass off at their idiocy.

    2. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: Red Herring

      Because Ivanka is Donald's daughter and Jared is his son in law.

    3. jmch Silver badge

      Re: Red Herring

      There's a reason officials are to use only official emails for official business - accountability. Without that, all sorts of underhand "not illegal but questionably moral" quid pro quos can get squirelled out of the official record. This is not just about IT best practice.

      It should be illegal for officials to use non-official channels for official communications. And private companies and individuals dealing with politicians should insist that any communications come from official emails (mostly for their own protection, since it's politicians they're dealing with). If a politician refuses to use their official email, it raises the question of what they have to hide.

      Clinton's email server doesn't seem to have been illegal (although I would change the law on that pronto). It certainly was both dumb (against security and other best practice ) and dubious (even if that wasn't the intention, it generates doubts about whether she has anything to hide)

      Of course, it's nothing in comparison to active collusion with a foreign power to influence the result of an election - both treasonous and impeachable. If there's anyone who should be locked up it's the orange narcissist sociopath in the white house.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Red Herring

        Whilst you are locking up Trump for Russian interference, don’t forget to lock up all the others for their assistance given by Nutteryahoo and MBS and his head choppers.

      2. Joe Montana

        Re: Red Herring

        For any form of questionable action, they will just meet in person and discuss off the record - the same way questionable things have been done for hundreds of years.

      3. Blank Reg

        Re: Red Herring

        "It certainly was both dumb (against security and other best practice )"

        The funny thing is that there is no evidence that Clinton's email server was ever hacked, but the state department unclassified email servers were.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Red Herring

          Yes it's not like someone was shot over it...right?! FFS.

        2. crocodome

          Re: Red Herring

          What about the FBI knocking on their campaign office door twice to let them know they'd been pwned?

      4. jelabarre59

        Re: Red Herring

        Of course, it's nothing in comparison to active collusion with a foreign power to influence the result of an election - both treasonous and impeachable. If there's anyone who should be locked up it's the orange narcissist sociopath in the white house.

        That's right, because Bill Clinton (you know, the spouse of Hilary) *NEVER* did influence peddling to the Chinese and others while he was in office.... Oh wait, nevermind...

        EVERYONE complains about the corruption, etc, yet the drooling masses STILL continue to vote for Kang & Kodos.

        1. jmch Silver badge

          Re: Red Herring

          "...because Bill Clinton (you know, the spouse of Hilary) *NEVER* did influence peddling to the Chinese and others ..."

          *Influence Peddling* is a big part of diplomacy and is actually part of the job of being president. The point is that the peddling quid pro quos should be in exchange for something of benefit to the nation in general, to the presidency as an office, or in support of some specific policies.

          It shouldn't be being used for the personal benefit of the president (or other official), although that is done by many, and is mostly just unethical or plain naff / cringeworthy. Asking for foreign interference in the electoral process is, in the US, not only grossly illegal but specifically prohibited and is specifically an impeachable offense.

          Trump already did it once, got away with it, and of course like all bullies / sociopaths who are not restrained and then push the boundaries some more, he's doing it again. And of course like any other narcissistic sociopath he will never accept that what he did is wrong. And if there wasn't a transcript he would be denying it ever happened (actually that might be giving him too much credit since he has already repeatedly denied many things that are on public record)

    4. phuzz Silver badge

      Re: Red Herring

      Because if they locked up Clinton for (eg) a year for this, then they'd have to lock up most of Trump's family for life.

      Or they would if the US had a function justice system of course, which is always a fun little fantasy.

  4. redpawn

    But Benghazi!

    Don't look at the LSOT (lying sack of Tump) except to worship him. Ignore his self dealing, corruption and incompetence, we need another Benghazi investigation now!

    1. mikepren

      Re: But Benghazi!

      Don't forget the comb over...

    2. crocodome

      Re: But Benghazi!

      I agree with your suggestion for another Benghazi investigation, but that's about it.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Trump, not off in the rough

    In the car park by the trash bins..

    If you want an investigation, he's the man to go after.

  6. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
    Stop

    Buttery males!

    As title...

  7. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    It's useless

    Republicans, Democrats, they both did it, both got caught and nothing came of it. They'll both do it again, and get caught, and nothing will come of it.

    The only reason Trump isn't doing it is because he's incapable of even being that smart.

    Call me when they actually do lock someone up over this kind of behavior. That will be news.

    We need a Yawn icon.

  8. Jellied Eel Silver badge

    Top Secret- NOFORN

    ..there wasn't anything scandalous nor classified on it at the time.

    That's not exactly what the report says. It said there were 91 valid violations, and 497 valid but not culpable violations.. So there was classified information on the server at the time. Much of the semantic wriggling comes from whether or not the emails were properly marked, which is the usual security/trust problem. So an email going 'Hey, check out this watersports vid of Trump' should have been at least marked Restricted as it contained personal information. Challenge is training users to get the senders to mark content correctly in the first place, and then being aware that adding comments could change the original classification.

    That seems to highlight problems with information awareness, ie just because an email isn't protectively marked, it doesn't mean it doesn't contain classified information and should be marked & handled as such.. Which is why government IT can end up costing so much because a lot of data can end up being classified. Then additional complications when traffic analysis can be used on unclassified data to deduce things that would be classified.

    1. Cavehomme_

      Re: Top Secret- NOFORN

      So far 4 people cannot handle your neutral factual explanation.

      Incredible how politicised everything has become so quickly.

      1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

        Re: Top Secret- NOFORN

        So far 4 people cannot handle your neutral factual explanation.

        Incredible how politicised everything has become so quickly.

        I'm trying to stick to the IT angle, and this is kind of an object lesson. So waay back when the Crackberry launched, lots of people wanted them. So security became an isuse, along with cost of buying and integrating BES into an email environment.

        So the usual challenge of users wanting to do their own thing, regardless of cost/security implications. In this case, complicated somewhat by US Federal records retention laws, but that can also be a general IT challenge. Nice gadget, how do we ensure compliance with Basel 3 and other financial data retention regs? See also GDPR, medical records protections etc etc.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Top Secret- NOFORN

        When they Delete emails en masses it's not only to make room on the Stack...

        That's my goto there was something illegal wiped out.

    2. Doctor Huh?

      Re: Top Secret- NOFORN

      I've been on the Internet too long.

      I mis-read that title as "Top Secret - NOPORN", a classification which would preclude any Trumpian watersports videos, thankfully.

    3. cirby

      Re: Top Secret- NOFORN

      It's amazing how "91 valid violations we can pin down to individuals and 497 valid violations we can't pin down to individuals" gets translated to "there were no violations."

      The report says there was no evidence that the introduction of classified material to unclassified systems was deliberate. That means is that there was no proof that they did it on purpose - but that also means that almost 600 violations were done unintentionally. Which means that they did so stupidly and accidentally.

      That's why you run secured systems to begin with: in case you stupidly include material that should be classified in your daily operations.

      As a footnote: No, material does NOT have to be marked CLASSIFIED to be considered such. Some information is considered "born classified," like casual conversations between US diplomats and foreign officials. Again, that's why Clinton and her flunkies should have been using a secured email server.

      1. crocodome

        Re: Top Secret- NOFORN

        Well said. And you are very much correct. Classified through compilation or discovery of classified information/material that has not been properly marked means... well... it's classified. You cannot be the Secretary of State and not expect to receive classified information intentionally and sometimes accidentally (i.e, a "spill"). Therefore, your email server had better be official, with proper protections, security controls, security plans, spill procedures, etc. Zero excuse.

        Gross negligence in mishandling classified material - especially at that volume - is just about as bad as intentionally mishandling it.

        All politics still aside, no normal human being responsible for managing information or information systems of a sensitive and potentially classified nature can get away with what has been discovered and proven. We're talking certain debarment and possibly jail time for all responsible. But politicians are a special breed of entitled gitwads, aren't they? eff em.

        1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

          Re: Top Secret- NOFORN

          Classified through compilation or discovery of classified information/material that has not been properly marked means... well... it's classified. You cannot be the Secretary of State and not expect to receive classified information intentionally and sometimes accidentally (i.e, a "spill"). Therefore, your email server had better be official, with proper protections, security controls, security plans, spill procedures, etc. Zero excuse.

          That highlights some of the political, legal and IT issues around this saga. One oddity is that the 30k emails handed over by the Clinton team from her time as Sec State didn't include any 'classified' emails, ie ones that had been protectively marked. That would seem unusual for emails to/from a cabinet level post where you'd reasonably expect them to be handling sensitive content.

          Politically, that opens up attacks that classified emails were deleted/intentionally witheld to avoid issues around mishandling classified content. And given the server was later wiped, it also makes it harder for Clinton to defend against those accusations.

          The lack of protective marking also indicates a training problem, or perhaps complacency in State or other federal staff mailing Clinton, ie not classifying content correctly. Reports mention using a (c) convention to indicate a paragraph or part of an email should be classified. The report also mentions that certain information is 'born classified'.. But if it's not marked, relies on the recipients to know that and treat it appropriately.

          Then there's the IT stuff. One aspect is also compliance with federal records retention. If Clinton had asked IT to set up a server, they could have set up an appropriately secured one. Then it'd be simple to use say 'HRClinton@state.gov', auto-forward to her server and archive as appropriate. Complication would be on the user end, ie having a reply-from state.gov for official correspondence or a different reply-from for private.. But that's the usual IT challenge when users mix official and personal correspondence.

          Having a 'VIP' insist on special handling is also an IT challenge, but seems to have been an issue in this case, ie staff being told not to question the email arrangements, or just using the private email address. It's again odd that official correspondence would be sent to that address rather than an official state.gov one. Reports say she only used the personal email, but it's conceivable an official state.gov address existed & staff monitored that one.

          But by not following good infosec procedures, Clinton ended up opening herself to the political attacks we've seen.

  9. james 68

    Cue:

    Rabid screaming of "But Benghazi...!!" In 3...2...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Cue:

      Diligent poisoning of the well...

    2. fandom

      Re: Cue:

      Why the countdown? You already did it yourself.

      And why would your 'enemies' bother doing it? She is irrelevant now, at most they may pretend to care a little for old times sake.

    3. baud

      Re: Cue:

      But Benghazi...!!

      Here. Happy? Now take a deep breath and go back to answer those support emails that are piling up in your inbox.

  10. _LC_
    Flame

    Hillary Clinton did something wrong? Nah, not her. Bernie, tell them! Not her, never!

    https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1185289626409406464

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hillary Clinton did something wrong? Nah, not her. Bernie, tell them! Not her, never!

      FFS, you dare provide a link to twitter, on here? wow :)

      1. _LC_

        Re: Hillary Clinton did something wrong? Nah, not her. Bernie, tell them! Not her, never!

        I don't have an account. Those FH politicians all use it, unfortunately. Would you have preferred a "lengthy" screenshot instead?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Hillary Clinton did something wrong? Nah, not her. Bernie, tell them! Not her, never!

          I would have preferred to have my eyes dipped in sulphuric acid to be honest :P

  11. Claverhouse Silver badge
    Mushroom

    The Most Evil and Incompetent Secretary of State Evah !

    But, but, her sloppy and incompetent handling of everything...

    Snivelling DNC apologists will do anything to clear the reputation of this unwholesome piece of shit.

    But for the private server, Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State would have been exemplary

    To be attested by millions of happy Libyans.

    1. phuzz Silver badge
      Flame

      Re: The Most Evil and Incompetent Secretary of State Evah !

      Yes, by American standards only invading one Middle Eastern country was particularly shoddy. They've barely got any oil either, what's the point?

      1. InsaneGeek

        Re: The Most Evil and Incompetent Secretary of State Evah !

        Only one?

        https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/peace-president-how-obama-came-to-bomb-seven-countries-in-six-years-9753131.html

        1. phuzz Silver badge

          Re: The Most Evil and Incompetent Secretary of State Evah !

          Indeed, Obama might have been a much more competent human being, but he certainly didn't deserve that Nobel Peace Prize.

          In fact, I think Trump has possibly started less wars than any recent president. Utter incompetence has it's occasional upsides!

          1. _LC_

            Re: The Most Evil and Incompetent Secretary of State Evah !

            "In fact, I think Trump has possibly started less wars than any recent president."

            This might be due to the fact that they are all still running. ;-)

          2. jake Silver badge

            Re: The Most Evil and Incompetent Secretary of State Evah !

            "possibly started less wars"

            Fewer.

            1. phuzz Silver badge

              Re: The Most Evil and Incompetent Secretary of State Evah !

              Damnit Stannis!

  12. John N

    Have they got round to making a 12 x 1 hour episodes documentary about this damn email server yet? Something to fill in the schedule gaps around Tipping Point and The Chase.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hosting the Secretary of State's communications on an unpatched Exchange server hosted in some guy's cupboard was not a very good idea, just saying.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Shade under the Clinton "Legal" Tree

    From what they allowed us to find, it didn't look so bad (ha ha).

    Just ensure the original source cannot be referenced to prove that statement.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Neutral?? Not

    Please stay neutral

  16. Tim Worstal

    So, Hillary isn't/wasn't a crook. Just incompetent.

    Sure makes me wish she'd won.

    1. Blank Reg

      At least Trump is both a crook and incompetent, just think what might be happening if he was only the former.

      1. Sherrie Ludwig

        Reply Icon

        At least Trump is both a crook and incompetent, just think what might be happening if he was only the former.

        Nixon. And, we are in for a long ride, over 500 days between first closed door meetings to decide to impeach Nixon and his resignation to avoid impeachment (and eventual removal from office - when Republicans had both balls and brains).

        1. jake Silver badge

          Timing, as they say ...

          Impeaching Trump is a no-brainer, and it will happen. Eventually. The only major stumbling block is that nobody sane would like to see Pence in power. Pence makes Dick Cheney look like a cute cuddly kitten in comparison ... A sane cute cuddly kitten. So most thinking Americans would rather have the senile idiot in chief for a little longer than give that fucking nut job a crack at the oval office. Look to see the impeachment come through with a few months to go in Trump's stay in the Whitehouse[0] ... and his removal from office no more than a couple weeks before the next inauguration.

          Unless New York manages to jail the small handed one first, in which case gawd/ess help us all.

          [0] Why does my spall chucker want to change that to Whorehouse?

          1. JoMe

            Re: Timing, as they say ...

            "Impeaching Trump is a no-brainer, and it will happen"

            For what though? They've been trying since before he even won the last election to tie him to Russia; or tie him to policy that allows criminal malfeasance, and they've even tried to tie his sons to Russia in a negative manner. They've gone up and down his financial records, and while his lawyer has done many shady things, there's still no actionable evidence of wrongdoing on his part. If there were, he'd have been in court defending himself years ago.

            What exactly do you think Trump should be impeached for, and based on what specific actionable evidence do you feel his guilt is assured?

          2. JoMe

            Re: Timing, as they say ...

            Instead of just thumbing me down, tell me. What impeachable offense do you have solid evidence for that Trump is guilty of? It's a simple question, and if you had even questionable evidence you would have replied with it.

        2. JoMe

          Two little things...

          Are needed to impeach. One is an actual impeachable crime to be committed by said president, the other is evidence of said crime. While I'm sure democrats and those with low IQ would like to call being an a-hole a crime, it's not, so impeaching Trump on any of the grounds people seem to want isn't going to happen. You need actual actionable evidence that an impeachable crime was committed. To date there isn't any. Else... he would have been impeached already.

  17. JoMe

    If you've never dealt with restricted data

    Then yeah, you can't fathom the furor over this issue. It's significant. Having worked in the industry - where a simple innocent accident can lead to SWAT teams at your front door and your business shut down for undetermined time - I can definitively say that anyone who was not a Clinton or Lefty Cling On would have been severely impacted had they done this.

  18. Ken Mitchell

    Classification is Inherent not Marked

    The classification of a document is inherent in the document based on the contents. Classification MARKINGS aren't dispositive. Many of Hillary's emails were not MARKED as classified but WERE classified based on the content. The creator of the document is REQUIRED TO apply appropriate classification markings such as "Secret" "Top Secret" or "NOFORN" or "CANUKUS EYES ONLY" and failure to apply the appropriate marking is an ADDITIONAL crime.

    1. JoMe

      Re: Classification is Inherent not Marked

      Love how Clintonites and idiots who have no clue about classified content are downing your notes...

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So, if I'm reading this correctly ...

    ... Hillary was only evading Freedom of Information Act requests and State Department Inspector General audits? And because transparency and accountability are trivial technicalities, it was all a tempest in a teapot? Is that about the size of it?

    As for the Republican National Committee hosting its email on private servers, excuse me, but isn't the Republican Party a private, non-governmental organization, like the Democratic Party? And doesn't the RNC do political fundraising, which is barred by law from being conducted using government property, including computers? Why would the RNC host its email on anything other than private servers?

    Stick to tech, Register, because you suck at politics.

    1. JoMe

      Re: So, if I'm reading this correctly ...

      She stated for the record that restricted email was being received on the server.

  20. gal5

    How do we know? it got "accidentally" erased.

  21. Big_Boomer Silver badge

    Politician is dirty and lied <shock horror>

    This is no longer news. This is the new norm. Get used to being lied to and ripped off by them. If you idolise one of them, then you need your head examined.

    Bored of it all and will continue to be so until someone somehow starts to hold them to account, preferably with a cattle prod.

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: Politician is dirty and lied <shock horror>

      Seems to me that Sam Clemens said pretty much the same thing. As did Ben Franklin. But it goes back much further than that. As Plato put it in around 400BC: "Mankind will never see an end of trouble until lovers of wisdom come to hold political power, or the holders of power become lovers of wisdom."

    2. JoMe

      Re: Politician is dirty and lied <shock horror>

      And if you follow the line, you'll see that most atrocities have been committed in the name of either politics or religion, and you begin to understand the meaning and power of the 2nd Amendment... and why you have to question the motives of the Left when they keep trying to disarm law abiding citizens.

  22. gal5

    How do we know? didn't she say she deleted them all?

  23. Frankly Francis
    WTF?

    What a pile of deepstate horsesh!t!

    "AT THE TIME"

    "110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification." - James Comey

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon