Ah, I see. So when Sean Hannity goes on his show on Fox News saying that sources say that charges are imminent, I should not take that as factually correct because it’s not Fox News’ position despite it being told on a Fox News show by a Fox News employee.
They like to muddy the waters, don’t they?
Crossbones
Sean isn’t a reporter, trust him as you would any other pundit. People have already highlighted the difference between News programs and Opinion programs on the networks.
For the thread, I found this article informative
The Email Saga
The more you know about the State Department, the worse Hillary’s actions look.
http://cdn.weeklystandard.biz/cache/280x280-5610f1d0f0859c121b05800de2d535d4.jpg
For alumni of U.S. national-security departments and agencies, Hillary Clinton’s email saga is mind-numbing. The publicly available information makes clear she and her aides violated so many elementary security prohibitions that alumni are speechless. They wonder, had they done what she did, how quickly they would have lost their clearances and jobs and how extensive the criminal indictments against them would be.
By contrast, many who have never served in government or dealt with classified information see the affair as opaque, even overblown. Certainly Clinton has worked hard to foster that impression. Leaving political spin aside, and without delving into arcane legal analysis, which is it? What did Clinton and her entourage actually do day-to-day, and what does it mean? In hopes of making things a little clearer, herewith the observations of one State Department alumnus, who has pondered how he would look in an orange jumpsuit were he in Clinton’s shoes.
State, like other national-security agencies, has both classified and unclassified ways for its employees, especially the most senior, to communicate. Clinton erred in two separate but often confused ways. First, she used private channels for official government business, and second, she used unclassified channels to send and receive classified information.
Her first error violates basic common sense, familiar to any private business: Business channels should be used for business purposes and personal channels for personal purposes. Obviously, there can be ambiguity between business and personal communications, such as one spouse asking another, “When will you be home for dinner?” But in Clinton’s case, there seems to be no ambiguity: She simply did not use government channels for her electronic communications. Her motive was almost certainly to put information she alone deemed personal beyond government access, which is impermissible even for the most junior clerk, let alone the secretary of state. Clinton’s private email system by definition undercuts her defense that she complied with government record-keeping requirements because all her emails went to unclassified government accounts (such as her aides’). Without full access to her server, why should we believe Clinton didn’t send emails to aides’ private email addresses, thereby shielding them entirely from potential government retrieval?
Clinton’s second error, using unclassified email systems—whether her private accounts or State’s unclassified email system (through her aides)—to transmit material that should have remained in classified channels, is the nub of the email issue. Clinton has asserted that what she did with her private channels was “allowed.” Yet she has produced no evidence whatever of who did this “allowing” that was contrary to applicable statutes and express State Department regulations involving official business and information security.
Clinton clearly did not vigorously pursue normal State procedures to have her private email server legitimized. Had she somehow gotten the necessary signoffs from the bureaucracy, she would have at least had cover from the current firestorm, and we would have heard about it long ago. Far more likely, she realized that, had she asked plainly, she would have been told plainly that her scheme was way out of bounds.
article continues . . .
