Vice President Fails To Demand An FBI Investigation After His Private Email Account Is Hacked

from the investigations-are-for-other-people dept

I can only assume Mike Pence is so self-absorbed he's literally incapable of recognizing his own hypocrisy. Either that or he's completely shameless.

After engaging in a presidential campaign where much was made of Hillary Clinton's private email address/server, Pence went to court to prevent his AOL emails from being released to public records requesters.

I can only assume Pence is now welcoming an FBI investigation into his use of an AOL account.

Clinton routed sensitive documents through an insecure personal server. Pence is doing the same. While Clinton was advised against setting up her own personal email server, it's likely Pence has had an AOL account for a long, long, long time. Sure, there's a difference between taking matters into your own hands and leaving your email security up to a third party, but the end result is no different: both were using private accounts to handle government business -- business that included the classified and sensitive information.

The main difference here is we know Pence's email account has been hacked. There were attempts made on Clinton's email server, but nothing out there suggests any of those attacks were successful. Considering Pence's earlier adamance about Clinton's careless email habits, it's probably time to invite the FBI to take a look at his careless handling of sensitive documents.

Emails released to IndyStar in response to a public records request show Pence communicated via his personal AOL account with top advisers on topics ranging from security gates at the governor’s residence to the state’s response to terror attacks across the globe. In one email, Pence’s top state homeland security adviser relayed an update from the FBI regarding the arrests of several men on federal terror-related charges.

Cyber-security experts say the emails raise concerns about whether such sensitive information was adequately protected from hackers, given that personal accounts like Pence's are typically less secure than government email accounts. In fact, Pence's personal account was hacked last summer.

Politicians routinely have to eat their words. They're rarely shy about casting the first (and several follow-up) stones, even while their own sins run dark and deep. But a guy who has an email investigation to at least partially thank for his new position should be following an own-words-based diet for the next several months. If nothing else, it might (MIGHT!) push him towards the occasional second thought before hitting "tweet."

If Pence were intellectually honest, he'd replace Clinton's name with his own in the statement he made to "Meet the Press" last year.

“What’s evident from all of the revelations over the last several weeks is that Hillary Clinton I operated in such a way to keep her my emails, and particularly her my interactions while Secretary of State with the Clinton Foundation governor of Indiana, out of the public reach, out of public accountability,” Pence said. “And with regard to classified information she I either knew or should have known that she I was placing classified information in a way that exposed it to being hacked and being made available in the public domain even to enemies of this country.”

Pence's former office is releasing a small subset of his AOL emails. The Indy Star has obtained around 30 of them, but the governor's office says it's withholding a majority of them because they're either (a) deliberative documents or (b) too damn sensitive to be released publicly.

If the governor's office won't release them, perhaps the hackers will. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, but sometimes an outsider kicking in the door and throwing open the blinds is the only way to achieve the transparency the public deserves.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 3 Mar 2017 @ 11:24am

    I eagerly expect Trump supporters spin on this. Expect dimensional rifts spawning out of the cognitive dissonance.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      kehvan (profile), 3 Mar 2017 @ 12:54pm

      Re:

      You don't have to be a Trump supporter to know democrats are reaching on this.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 12:54pm

      Re:

      You know them too well:
      This is not even close to the same. Pence only did it in his state and didn't handle classified information. You know, it is not even illegal in contrast to Clinton etc.

      In reality it is nothing special. Just common republican hypocricy. There is nothing newsworthy/controversial about it. It is just reality having a communist bias...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 2:32pm

        Re: Re:

        >In reality it is nothing special. Just common republican hypocrisy.

        Your tribal affiliation is showing. You are doing the same as them, attacking the other tribe for the same faults that your tribe also has, while pretending that your tribe does not do the same.

        This is how party politics corrupts the system, as supporting the party is more important than ensuring that individual politicians are honest.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 5:20pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You may be reading too much into it. Just because there is a republican hypocricy doesn't mean there is no democratic hypocricy.

          Republicans just don't seem to care about it and have a tendency to attack the media for bringing it up. Which is even more ironic when they are running on "values".

          The democrats are often hypocritical in issues related to the judicial system and economy. Particularly since "liberals" in USA carry very few actual liberal ideals.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 8:32pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Big difference that no one's really considering. Clinton read/sent classified info in her private email, operated in her home. Nothing Pence read/sent was classified, as far as we know today. Classified information is required by law and regulation to be handled solely on secure systems managed by the government. That's Clinton's worst error. Operating her email server out of her house was dumb as hell, a seriously stupid error.

          The term "sensitive" does not imply "classified."

          There is an official designation for sensitive material, in relation to the federal, not state government. However, it is not one of the classified statuses.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 8:13pm

        Re: Re:

        You know, it is not even illegal in contrast to Clinton etc. Unless I'm misinformed, Clinton's wasn't illegal either... Or are you the late Justice Scalia in disguise?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2017 @ 5:41am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Some seem to believe they are. I distinctly remember several people shouting "lock her up" during the election campaign. While that may be with the belief that political opponents belong in jail in general, it seems to coincide with certain FBI-investigations into a certain case.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2017 @ 7:54am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            lock her up ... because the angry crowd is always right?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2017 @ 1:03am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Some seem to believe they are"

            Some seem to believe a lot of silly things, even those that are easily disproven with readily available evidence. Lots of people believing something does not make it true.

            "it seems to coincide with certain FBI-investigations into a certain case"

            Investigations that resulted in zero charges being filed and agreement that Clinton's actions were in line with the rules of the government at the time (which have since chaged), IIRC.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 11:51am

    I can only assume Mike Pence is so self-absorbed he's literally incapable of recognizing his own hypocrisy. Either that or he's completely shameless.

    From what I've seen of the current Republican administration, it's all of the above.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 4 Mar 2017 @ 2:42am

      Re:

      Never attribute to malice what can sufficiently be explained by stupidity.

      We are talking the Trump government here. Tell those guys that they can get rid of their shoe tying problems by using velcro, they'll order velcro shoelaces.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 12:11pm

    "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?

    As you twice state, you are only assuming. What's your evidence that he's unconcerned or that an investigation hasn't been started?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 12:15pm

    "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?

    As you twice state, you are only assuming. What's your evidence that he's unconcerned or that an investigation hasn't been started?

    2nd attempt after "Held For Moderation". I can only assume that since was no "view your comment" link that you're censoring dissent as usual.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 12:18pm

      Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?

      Yes, since that appeared it's consistent that comments never go through if the "view your comment" link isn't shown.

      Good old Techdirt, the champion of "free speech", so long as it fits the ideology.

      You have so few comments now that you should welcome even dissent.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 12:44pm

        Re: Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?

        1) You're not a victim. You're not special. The system isn't personally attacking you. There's a high probability you typed something that could be construed as 'disruptive' which triggered an automatic flagging. You can blame other people for that. There isn't a moderator sitting around waiting for to silence something you post.

        2) Please look up and understand what "Free Speech" is. Because what it is not is the freedom to say whatever you want wherever you want without repercussion from everyone. Have you been arrested for making your comment? No? Well then your free speech hasn't been violated.

        3) Dissent is okay. It is perfectly acceptable. It's even better when the person expressing it is willing to have a discussion over it. In fact, it seems like you are dissenting right now, and I can see your comment. It seems like everything is in order here. So what are you really complaining about?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        TechDescartes (profile), 3 Mar 2017 @ 1:33pm

        Re: Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?

        Oh, the irony of a commenter trying to attack Tim for "assuming" immediately proceeding to assume that any moderation whatsoever equals censorship. You keep using that word...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          keithzg (profile), 3 Mar 2017 @ 2:44pm

          Re: Re: Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?

          Particularly ironic since his comments that he's complaining were rejected are visible.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Wendy Cockcroft, 7 Mar 2017 @ 6:00am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?

            I've had comments held for moderation and didn't have a cow. Neither should anyone else. Nobody is owed an audience and even if my comment never got published, the oh-so-important point (to me) would not have been a matter of life or death. Get some perspective, AC.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 1:41pm

        Re: Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?

        What's your evidence that you're being moderated for content?

        You know, given that you have a problem with assuming...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 2:51pm

        Re: Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?

        Ah look at the special snowflake. Your comments are just too good to hold for moderation unlike us groundlings.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 12:53pm

      Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?

      As you twice state, you are only assuming.

      You write this as if it matters.

      He should be concerned. He looks like a great, big asshole.

      And he should be investigated with the same vigor as Hillary, so everyone else doesn't look like an asshole as well.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 8:35pm

        Re: Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?

        If he violated any laws, he should be investigated. And subject to the same standards for indictment that Hillary was.

        So the first question: did he violate any laws? Anyone know for sure? Or is this all about assumption? I assume you're guilty, therefore you are....

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 4:52pm

      Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?

      you're censoring dissent as usual.

      Look cupcake, you've just shown yourself to be a special snow flake. My my my. Your words are so true and indisputable that "the moderators" simply can't allow them near our tender eye balls.

      Yeah, right. Whatever.

      Come back when you've grown the other brain cell, m'kay?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 6:51pm

      Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?

      out_of_the_blue just hates it when due process is enforced.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Thad, 3 Mar 2017 @ 8:22pm

      Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?

      2nd attempt after "Held For Moderation". I can only assume that since was no "view your comment" link that you're censoring dissent as usual.

      Now you have the same post up twice, and the second time is dumber. Great job.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      techflaws (profile), 3 Mar 2017 @ 10:00pm

      Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?

      I can only assume that since was no "view your comment" link that you're censoring dissent as usual.
      I can only assume you're a lying jackass that is too self-absorbed to realize anyone can easily spot that your ramblings are blatant lies, given the other dissent posts under virtually every article.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ryunosuke (profile), 3 Mar 2017 @ 12:23pm

    Tim, you are mostly correct....

    MOST politicians are self absorbed and/or completely shameless, there are a few, but not many.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Haywood (profile), 3 Mar 2017 @ 12:43pm

    Apples / oranges

    This is important because we know state governors have a top secret clearance. Oh wait....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 1:42pm

      Re: Apples / oranges

      Yeah, I feel much better about him having a top secret clearance now.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Thad, 3 Mar 2017 @ 8:24pm

      Re: Apples / oranges

      Refresh my memory: how many of Clinton's confidential e-mails have been confirmed to have been compromised by hackers?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 10:54pm

      Re: Apples / oranges

      This is important because we know state governors have a top secret clearance. Oh wait....

      Actually, state governors are much more likely to have operational security information than anyone in the State department.

      For instance, who is it that runs the national guard in each state? And why would State need operational security information?

      Last, why would someone that got an email not properly marked "classified" be responsible for it? Why would they be responsible when it was marked classified retroactively? And why would they be responsible for receiving it if it was correctly marked? And if a crime was actually committed, why didn't the hyper partisan prosecutor, you know, prosecute? Or is it just another 15 or so million dollars for the 13th Benghazi "investigation", that also didn't prosecute?

      Go Chant "Lock her up!" with Michael Thomas Flynn. Better be quick about it, because MTF might just find himself, er, "tied up". Along with his buddy Jeff Sessions. Because lying to the FBI and Congress are, you know, crimes.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 12:47pm

    "it's probably time to invite the FBI to take a look at his careless handling of sensitive documents."

    As governor, what federal law did he break that would warrant an FBI investigation?

    Sure it's hypocritical, but it's also not quite the same.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    kehvan (profile), 3 Mar 2017 @ 12:54pm

    Oh please...

    AOL email servers aren't quite the same thing as a personal server that was ran from out of your house. Let me give a direct analogy where "communications" is equated to "official funds."

    Politicians shouldn't use personal email accounts for public business, like Pence did, because that's like taking your office operating budget and putting in you personal bank account at Bank of America. Mixing business and personal is bad, and any oversight depends on the bank providing accurate records in order to determine what was personal and what was business.

    But Hillary went much further. She put that budget in her personal bank account, at a bank she owned herself, and then was able to delete any records she wanted with zero oversight.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 1:05pm

      Re: Oh please...

      You should only use analogy to explain, not to convince. If you use it to convince, then people argue over the analogy and not the issue.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 3 Mar 2017 @ 1:07pm

      Re: Oh please...

      AOL email servers aren't quite the same thing as a personal server that was ran from out of your house...

      ...in that a personal server limits access to only those you trust, while AOL's system administrators are countless and anonymous.

      AOL also lets you delete emails with zero oversight.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 5:01pm

      Re: Oh please...

      AOL email servers aren't quite the same thing as a personal server

      Have you seen the configurations from that "mail server in the basement"? Because they're posted (with minor redaction) on the Reddit thread. It wasn't horrible. It wasn't super secure, but then it's freakin' EMAIL. It can't be "secure" for practical discussion.

      Have you done a security audit on AOL? Because they don't pass the gamma suites. They aren't designed to do so, by intent. Which AOL discloses, if you bother to read their SLA. And AOL credential security is completely unaudited, which "that server in the basement" most certainly was.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Thad, 3 Mar 2017 @ 8:25pm

      Re: Oh please...

      AOL email servers aren't quite the same thing as a personal server that was ran from out of your house.

      You're right.

      If you run a personal server out of your house, it's much harder for someone to call up your ISP and socially engineer their way into your account.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 4 Mar 2017 @ 1:22pm

      Re: Oh please...

      "AOL email servers aren't quite the same thing as a personal server that was ran from out of your house."

      Yeah, apparently AOL's servers are easier to hack...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 12:54pm

    Chris Christies crew in New Jesey and the BridgeGate crew did the same thing with Hotmail I believe.

    And AOL? That is still alive? Who uses that?

    Government employees who utilize accounts like this should be in jail, not because of the risk of hacking, but because the only reason to use them is to circumvent the FOIA. That is conspiracy I believe.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 12:58pm

    Obfuscation

    Theres a difference. I'm sure that Pence has a government e-mail for his role as Vice President. This DOES NOT preclude him having a personal e-mail account as well.

    Hillary Clinton had no government account for her State Department e-mail, she had things set up to route State Department e-mail automatically to her personal e-mail server, committing felonies outlined in the federal records act in doing so.

    The problem is not having personal accounts, it is using them for government business.

    Now of course if someone in government has both personal and government accounts you can question if they ever use their personal account for government business, but you may never be able to find out for sure.

    HOWEVER, when the freaking Secretary of State REFUSES to use a government e-mail AT ALL. Then you KNOW she was breaking the law (federal records act).

    The grey area is if she also violated laws involving improper use of classified information by using her personal e-mail as her ONLY email for both her personal and government business. It is possible she may have never sent/recieved classified material to her personal account while Secretary of State. However its only possible if she were the most useless Secretary of State in recent history....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 3 Mar 2017 @ 1:24pm

      Re: Obfuscation

      All of which adds up to "Hillary treated email just like Republicans."

      Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice also used private accounts for classified emails. In fact Colin Powell advised Hillary to do so.

      Then there's Bush II, Cheney, Rove and anyone else connected to the Bush White House email controversy, tens of millions of White House emails sent through private servers. Millions of them lost. With the same security issues.

      And Jeb!, who as governor used his own server against the rules and as Florida governor to discuss security and military issues such as troop deployments to the Middle East and the protection of nuclear plants.

      2016 Republican candidates Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal each have their own email scandals. Mitt Romney too.

      And of course there's all those Congressman who claim that they "don't use email", while having their aides use their private accounts to avoid FOIA requests, security be damned.

      So Hillary is guilty of treating email just like Republicans before, during AND NOW since. But as always, IOKIYAR. (It's OK If You're A Republican.)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        JEDIDIAH, 3 Mar 2017 @ 4:03pm

        Ignoring key facts to fuel the narrative.

        Except for the part where she used her own private email server.

        Hillary stands completely on her own apart from everyone else in both parties and the various state governments in this regard.

        She chose to take an extra level of responsibility and liability upon herself. It's a distinction that would make a difference for a lawyer or similar professional that handles other people's private data.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          orbitalinsertion (profile), 3 Mar 2017 @ 4:44pm

          Re: Ignoring key facts to fuel the narrative.

          It doesn't make her particularly special. She broke some further rules and laws doing so, in the same action. But the loud and continuous cry that this makes her particularly worse than any of a number of other backchannel users is all out of proportion with the merit of the complaint.

          Taking the extra level of responsibility (or extra effort to hide) can be argued to be better or worse than using basic commercial email services, but no one has made a good argument on that yet. That her system probably sucked does not illustrate an intent to leak classified info like a sieve, and it is still potentially more secure than any other commonly used email service. (Never mind that they rifle through your text to serve ads.)

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Roger Strong (profile), 3 Mar 2017 @ 5:11pm

          Re: Ignoring key facts to fuel the narrative.

          Except for the part where she used her own private email server.

          Incorrect.

          The Bush II White House, Jeb! and several others used private servers.

          Colin Powell and others using AOL is WORSE, not better. Only people you trust would administer your private server. You have no control over the many, many people administering AOL server, and no knowledge of who they are.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 1:25pm

      Re: Obfuscation

      The problem is not having personal accounts, it is using them for government business.

      From the article:

      Emails released to IndyStar in response to a public records request show Pence communicated via his personal AOL account with top advisers on topics ranging from security gates at the governor’s residence to the state’s response to terror attacks across the globe. In one email, Pence’s top state homeland security adviser relayed an update from the FBI regarding the arrests of several men on federal terror-related charges.

      Hmmm...that sounds kinda governmenty to me.

      Now of course if someone in government has both personal and government accounts you can question if they ever use their personal account for government business, but you may never be able to find out for sure.

      Seems like we're finding out. But keep up the good deflection.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Mike Stimpson, 3 Mar 2017 @ 1:42pm

        Re: Re: Obfuscation

        I'll bite.

        Pence did this as state governor. Was he handling classified information? I doubt it. For that matter, did the federal records law apply to a state governor? IANAL, but I doubt it.

        The top-level post labeled "Obfuscation" said that it was using private email for government business. That may be a problem, but I don't think it's *the* problem. Classified information is *the* problem.

        Now, it's certainly a bad look. It may even be quite a bit of hypocrisy. And using private email for government business may still be a problem, even for a governor. But it is also true that the circumstances are different, different in ways that actually matter.

        But by all means, claim that everyone who points that out is "deflecting".

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 1:48pm

          Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation

          Pence did this as state governor.

          I'm sure that's reassuring to the people of Indiana.

          Was he handling classified information? I doubt it.

          But you're not certain. An investigation would be needed to ferret that information out, amirite?

          But it is also true that the circumstances are different, different in ways that actually matter.

          Such as scale, as opposed to substance?

          But by all means, claim that everyone who points that out is "deflecting".

          When your defense of Pence relies on a comparison to Hillary, you can be sure I'll call it what it is.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 4:43pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation

            Clearly, you have never worked with classified info because you seem unaware that such info is a federal matter.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2017 @ 8:24am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation

              Clearly you assume that the federal government has no contact with state governors.

              Are you sure you've really worked with classified information?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Roger Strong (profile), 3 Mar 2017 @ 2:09pm

          Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation

          Pence did this as state governor. Was he handling classified information? I doubt it.

          You'd be wrong to doubt it. State governors handle all sorts of classified information. From the article above:

          Emails released to IndyStar in response to a public records request show Pence communicated via his personal AOL account with top advisers on topics ranging from security gates at the governor’s residence to the state’s response to terror attacks across the globe. In one email, Pence’s top state homeland security adviser relayed an update from the FBI regarding the arrests of several men on federal terror-related charges.

          Jeb!, who as Florida governor used his own server against the rules, used it to discuss security and military issues such as troop deployments to the Middle East and the protection of nuclear plants.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 4:51pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation

            "Classified Information" is a matter of federal law. While there is nothing that prevents a state from enacting something similar for certain types of information, I have yet to see a single state that has done so.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Roger Strong (profile), 3 Mar 2017 @ 5:20pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation

              "Classified Information" is a matter of federal law.

              ...which can cover things that affect a state or happen within it, leading to the governor's involvement.

              You know, like several things listed in the original story and repeated in the post you just responded to.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 9:40pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation

                You appear inclined to believe no one but yourself and your conspiracy theorist friends. To repeat myself, your understanding of our classified information system is so far off the mark as to make your comments mere declarations of fiction. Others here have made valid points. You would do well to read and try to understand them.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2017 @ 8:25am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation

                  You appear inclined to believe no one but yourself and your conspiracy theorist friends.

                  Now that's fucking funny!!!

                  Marked as LOL.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Thad, 3 Mar 2017 @ 8:28pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation

              "Classified Information" is a matter of federal law.

              ...are you...under the impression that if classified information is shared with people who don't work for the federal government, then it no longer counts as classified?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 9:47pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation

                Information is made available to persons who have had background investigations performed (typically by the FBI, but sometimes involving other federal agencies), been granted one or more of several levels of security clearances, and who have a demonstrable need to know. Persons not intimately involved in federal matters typically, and unsurprisinly, have not gone through these protocols.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2017 @ 4:06pm

          Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation

          Well stated.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Thad, 3 Mar 2017 @ 8:26pm

          Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation

          For that matter, did the federal records law apply to a state governor? IANAL, but I doubt it.

          So if it's not illegal, it's okay?

          You know Clinton was never charged with anything, right?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Digitari, 3 Mar 2017 @ 10:28pm

    many of you are using words that you don't know the meaning of

    Classified information means that it is of one of three types, Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret. the are no "state" classifications of this nature, at ALL.
    The state level is much more akin to non-disclosure agreement level. Or not for public disclosure.
    If a State Governor is getting classified written (Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret) material it will be by special courier not through E-mail.

    Just to clear up all the misconceptions

    (This was MY job while in the Marines, to disseminate Classified material to those that needed to know)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2017 @ 8:26am

      Re: many of you are using words that you don't know the meaning of

      Careful, you might explode the heads of the don't know squat know it alls who frequent this echo chamber.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Thad, 4 Mar 2017 @ 10:44am

        Re: Re: many of you are using words that you don't know the meaning of

        You know what would make it less of an echo chamber? Intelligent, reasoned, good-faith debate.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Thad, 4 Mar 2017 @ 9:12am

      Re: many of you are using words that you don't know the meaning of

      So when the Indianapolis Star reports this:

      Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb's office released 29 pages from Pence's AOL account but declined to release an unspecified number of emails because the state considers them confidential and too sensitive to release to the public.

      does that mean "confidential" as in an official classification, or are we seeing "confidential" used in a colloquial sense here? Do we have any way of knowing that at this point?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    colin, 6 Mar 2017 @ 7:56am

    Personal Emails

    The difference here is one person is using encrypted forms to send personal emails whereas the other (Clinton) is using gmail to send sensitive material via encrypted channels.

    So, there is a HUGE difference.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2017 @ 1:29pm

    You're showing your colors, Tim. Hillary was breaking the law, storing classified documents on a private server. Pence wasn't doing this, and what he did wasn't against the law. All he was required to do, under law, was save the business emails for public record.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.