Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, it's more likely I need to stop discussing something with someone argues against reality. The stuff you are saying, I've proven false with State Department regulations. You had the audacity to suggest the Secretary of State is not an employee of the State Department.
She was not. And He is not. Both on the Executive payroll. They are employees of the White House or President but not of the Department. And she in her time and he in his can waive any State Dept protocol. It is there authority that makes the protocols binding. And they act with the authority of the President in their area without consulting him. There - all sorts of fun stuff you did not know.
Not if it comes to State as an input to a work product. Think about it. A SofS can't tell some shirt tale dictator we know he crossed the river and had better get his ass back or he will get it shot off? But he can't say that because the satellite agency classified the photo that provides the SofS with athe info?
You think about it for a second, perhaps the agency that provided that information doesn't want the dictator to know they have the capability of knowing where he is at. As I understand it this policy went into place after 9/11 so agencies would more freely share information. By keeping control of the classification they can insure giving it to other agencies is not going to interfere with their own operations.
No, it's more likely I need to stop discussing something with someone argues against reality. The stuff you are saying, I've proven false with State Department regulations. You had the audacity to suggest the Secretary of State is not an employee of the State Department. That's like saying the CEO of Coke is not the employee of Coke. It's moronic.
I thought the Secretary Of State was appointed by the President and serves in his cabinet, and is therefore an employee of the White House. The SoS is "the highest-ranking appointed executive branch official". I may be wrong, but that's what I thought.
I've brought up my previous position as an analyst exactly two times in this thread. The only people who are repeatedly bringing it up, are people like you. Re-read the thread and you will see. This is called you being disingenuous.
Quote:
I don't believe I ever said you brought up prosecution. I brought it up. If she broke the law, there should be consequences. I don't care what you think about that. That's what I think. However, lousy judgement, which all people exhibit at various times, is not the same as breaking the law. So far I see lousy judgement, and that concerns me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Certainly it matters if she broke a law.
You don't prosecute people if they haven't broken the law. And believe me, if she broke the law on this -- the law as it was at the time -- then she should be prosecuted.
If you cannot prove she broke a law, back off.
Like it or not, that's the American system of justice.
And the fact that you're really just another get Hillary at all cost advocate is why I will not indulge in your attempts of obfuscation.
At no point in time was the discussion ever about prosecution. The bold was an implicit, if not an explicit, statement by you that I must prove she broke a law, in order for my position to have merit with you. You wanted me to defend against your straw man or I should basically ****. This is you being disingenuous, again.
Quote:
IF and WHEN it is proven that laws were actually broken, I'll accept that. And I'll accept whatever consequence are deemed appropriate for Mrs. Clinton. It's very much like with the Bill and Monica affair. I wanted Bill to resign at the time because he clearly lied to the American people. But I didn't feel there was an impeachable offense.
In this thread, the discussion has/had nothing to do with breaking laws. It was actually created to steer away from this obfuscation/red herring. Again, its the typical Clinton support spin: "Prove she broke a law even though she admittedly destroyed any evidence that will prove her innocent or not, then I"ll take it serious." For the umpteenth, the fact we do not have the record is the issue that she created and why its an issue. How can you stand by such a willfully ignorant position? Good bye.
Last edited by billydaman; 09-10-2015 at 02:28 AM..
It is legal and allowed to process federal data on a non governmental system as long as the data is protected appropriately.
This is not a "protocol" that she can "wish away". Federal data is managed and protected in very prescribed ways and doesn't have anything to do with her position.
Her documents fall under FISMA as do all federal data. She would need to meet FIPS 200 Minimum Security Requirements for Federal Information and Information systems (http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fi...inal-march.pdf). Based on the confidentiality, integrity, and availability requirements of the data, appropriate security controls from NIST 800-53 are selected. Formal risk assessments, auditing, and an accreditation (among other things) are required. This ensures the data is properly and continually protected based on its threats, risks, and value.
Per 5 FAM 1065.1-6 Unclassified Non-Department-Owned Systems Processing Federal Information (5 FAM 1065 references Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (Title III of Public Law 107-347) and the E-Government Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-347)) The system needs to be registered with the Department, go through a certification and accreditation process, and have annual audits turned over to the Department per FISMA. To be accredited, the system must be reviewed and approved by the DAA (Designated Approving Authority.. which isn't Clinton). http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/85783.pdf
The State Department has failed to show any of the required documentation which should still exist under federal document retention laws. This makes the activity both illegal and against State Department policy in the manner it was performed.
Now, can she deny knowledge and say she wasn't informed that this was required? Probably will, but I find it incredibly hard to believe she requested this private server and no one stood up and told her it wasn't going to be that easy.
Now the issue of Foreign government data. By treaty, that information is considered Confidential (which is part of the Classified category of data) at it's birth. As Secretary of State she knows this. She would also know regardless of marking, that satellite imagery delivered to her from an intelligence agency would be classified. Again, these are not protocols you can just wish away. And even if she did, that wishing is required to be documented. That documentation again is missing.
To top all that off she knows and gets briefings on what the cyber capabilities are of our adversaries and felt her little server in the broom closet of her house managed by a part time IT guy was sufficient.
She made a gross poor judgement call as a senior cabinet member. She's tried to spin it and cover it up. If any lower federal employee had taken it on themselves to run a private server managing this type of federal data from their home they would be in jail. I've seen them lose their careers for far less.
It is legal and allowed to process federal data on a non governmental system as long as the data is protected appropriately.
This is not a "protocol" that she can "wish away". Federal data is managed and protected in very prescribed ways and doesn't have anything to do with her position.
Her documents fall under FISMA as do all federal data. She would need to meet FIPS 200 Minimum Security Requirements for Federal Information and Information systems (http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fi...inal-march.pdf). Based on the confidentiality, integrity, and availability requirements of the data, appropriate security controls from NIST 800-53 are selected. Formal risk assessments, auditing, and an accreditation (among other things) are required. This ensures the data is properly and continually protected based on its threats, risks, and value.
Per 5 FAM 1065.1-6 Unclassified Non-Department-Owned Systems Processing Federal Information (5 FAM 1065 references Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (Title III of Public Law 107-347) and the E-Government Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-347)) The system needs to be registered with the Department, go through a certification and accreditation process, and have annual audits turned over to the Department per FISMA. To be accredited, the system must be reviewed and approved by the DAA (Designated Approving Authority.. which isn't Clinton). http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/85783.pdf
The State Department has failed to show any of the required documentation which should still exist under federal document retention laws. This makes the activity both illegal and against State Department policy in the manner it was performed.
Now, can she deny knowledge and say she wasn't informed that this was required? Probably will, but I find it incredibly hard to believe she requested this private server and no one stood up and told her it wasn't going to be that easy.
Now the issue of Foreign government data. By treaty, that information is considered Confidential (which is part of the Classified category of data) at it's birth. As Secretary of State she knows this. She would also know regardless of marking, that satellite imagery delivered to her from an intelligence agency would be classified. Again, these are not protocols you can just wish away. And even if she did, that wishing is required to be documented. That documentation again is missing.
To top all that off she knows and gets briefings on what the cyber capabilities are of our adversaries and felt her little server in the broom closet of her house managed by a part time IT guy was sufficient.
She made a gross poor judgement call as a senior cabinet member. She's tried to spin it and cover it up. If any lower federal employee had taken it on themselves to run a private server managing this type of federal data from their home they would be in jail. I've seen them lose their careers for far less.
You have the same old problem. She was a cabinet minister and has the delegated authority of the President in any area dealing with the Dept of State. Thus any rule she chooses to waive is waived...at least with respect to her behavior.
She clearly made a mistake in setting up the server. So consider that when you vote for her. Not the first or the last she will make I am sure. But what she did was within her authority.
As this whole area appears of interest it might well be a good idea to resurrect the report on government executive use of email from just before the Clinton thing broke loose.
What she did is within her authority when the procedures are followed. She didnt. I don't know if that was due to true ignorance or just ego. Federal data protection covers all Federal data from every branch and position in the government except DOD who has recently took up the NIST standards after retiring DIACAP.
Transmission of Federal data as noted in the NIST controls based on classification is covered by the NSA, even for the POTUS and DOD.
What she did is within her authority when the procedures are followed. She didnt. I don't know if that was due to true ignorance or just ego. Federal data protection covers all Federal data from every branch and position in the government except DOD who has recently took up the NIST standards after retiring DIACAP.
Transmission of Federal data as noted in the NIST controls based on classification is covered by the NSA, even for the POTUS and DOD.
Disagree. She is not bound by any standard because she can modify it as she sees fit. So unless the standard is actually part of the statute she can do as she sees fit.
We seem unable to understand that she moves with the powers of the President in anything to do with the Dept of State.
Again she can be bound by statute as can the President. But neither he nor she can be bound by regulations or standards that are within their purview. And I expect there are areas of their authority where they would claim even statute cannot go on constitutional grounds...if for instance the Legislature wanted to make a treaty by legislation it over a Presidential veto. That would end up in the courts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
