Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Home Servers Had Ports Open (ap.org)
Jim Efaw writes: Hillary Clinton's home servers had more than just the e-mail ports open directly to the Internet. The Associated Press discovered, by using scanning results from 2012 "widely available online", that the clintonemail.com server also had the RDP port open; another machine on her network had the VNC port open, and another one had a web server open even though it didn't appear to be configured for a real site. Clinton previously said that her server featured "numerous safeguards," but hasn't explained what that means. Apparently, requiring a VPN wasn't one of them.
now claims the server was secured.
either of these claims disproves the other. You cannot have secured what does not exist.
Interesting how the debate has shifted away from the lies and denials in public of this, but into the content and construction.
It's like any of us being caught with a machine gun illegally in our possession but turning the debate away from the law we broke having it into whether or not it was loaded and what type of ammo, as if that made any difference.
I'm preparing my suicide potion tonight... :(
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
When it comes to building, or using, or setting up software for consumer use, it just sucks. They often have a bidding contract and hand it out to whomever pays the least.
Hillary isn't a techie, she simply reiterates what she is told about things like this. All this shows is that politicians need additional training on the proper way to handle security and privacy. Clinton's mistake is she tried a "do it yourself" or "hire someone yourself" approach, which in some areas isn't a good idea unless you really know what you are doing.
Allow me to quote our future president [and inevitable Nobel Prize winner] and allow you to draw your own conclusions:
...the point is her fundamental dishonesty, disregard for the rules that apply to 'little people', and flippant mendacity when it came to being confronted on the subject.
Of course, flagrant violation of security rules like this would get you or me thrown in prison.
As much as the Republican presidential contest is a clown car, the Democrats have perhaps an even more difficult choice: goofy or sleazy, pick one.
I did finally hear a good reason to vote for Trump, for once:
http://i.imgur.com/wVkmhzL.png
-Styopa
I really hope that this isn't an apology for Hillary.
The worst part are all the relatively smart people who are excusing this, simply because she has a (D) after her name. All I have to say, is if this were Jeb, he would be in jail already.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Why is everyone focusing on security with this whole private email server? Sure, security was a problem but that's not why she made her own email server. It was made to bypass public records laws. By having their own email server they can retain or destroy whatever they want and fulfill records requests with whatever they deem fit. The IRS was their role model :-). It's about control, not security. Her and her administration should be tried for that first.
Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
Clinton's mistake is she tried a "do it yourself" or "hire someone yourself" approach
Hillary's servers were not totally secure, but were they more or less secure than the State Dept's servers?
Is there anyone who cares about this issue that didn't already hate Hillary for other reasons?
Transparency.
I hope she was using Windows, we all know how hardened that is.
Clinton previously said that her server featured "numerous safeguards," but hasn't explained what that means.
Some of the numerous security technologies employed include "theater" and "through obscurity".
Like that matters..... Just imagine classified information flying around the internet, getting relayed though who knows how many mail servers.... What difference does it make?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
So you're saying every government employee should ignore the law, blow off their government issued email accounts, set up their own servers, and lie about it afterwards?
Much to the chagrin of Hillary.
She should have said that in March. It would be true, but doesn't excuse the use of such a server to bypass federal records laws and security procedures.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
:)
Nice to see their replacement for Bohner accidentally tell the truth; I bet there was a lot of shit hit the floor when that got out.
I can't wait for the next attack; I was hoping I could get a sound bite of McCarthy calling Hillary a communist, but I guess I won't get a chance now. :)
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Do you work for General Motors? Reuters? John Deere? DuPont? Exxon Mobile? Pfizer? Ford? IBM? Amazon? HP? General Food? Walmart? Apple? General Electric? AT&T? Boeing? Proctologist and Gamble? UPS? Disney? Lockheed Martin? Oracle? Philip Morris? Macy's? NIke? McDonald's? Staples? Whirlpool? Goodyear Tire and Rubbers (wink, wink)? United States Steel? . . . etc., etc., etc.
If you worked for any big company, and set up your own email server to do company business . . . your testicles would be deep fried and hung up as pinatas. For most dorks in the US, they do not understand what setting up your own email server, of dubious security and audibility. For us IT professionals, Obama issuing another "Executive Administrative" decree that retroactively declares Hilary's email server as safe . . . well, that sounds and smells like shit to me . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
I really hope that this isn't an apology for Hillary.
If it's an apology, it would be for more than Hillary. Colin Powell also used a private e-mail for state-department business.
The worst part are all the relatively smart people who are excusing this, simply because she has a (D) after her name.
Colin Powell does not have a (D) after his name.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
She did both, she hosted government communications on her private email and scrubbed the communications that she deemed damaging or not related.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Even I know that was supposed to be a humorous quip, avoiding answering the question. She won't say the server was wiped, because that is bad optics during a presidential race, but it was, she (via her "team) has admitted to it.
The question is, how many people would still vote for her simply because she has a (D) behind her name? That is the really sorry state of our politics.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Hillary tried to "do it herself" when it was against protocol to do it any way but through government channels. Let's not forget that part.
I looked at all the current presidential candidates websites to see how good their security/tech was:
https://bryanquigley.com/polit...
In summary:
Epic fail - Jim Gilmore, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki
IPv6 - Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio.
Complicated Setups - Clinton and Christie
CloudFlare and WordPress are popular
I don't hate Hillary Clinton, but with the "What, like with a cloth" statement and calling Indianapolis "India no place", I doubt she should be/have been an official in the government. She seems like she can't be bothered to learn a little bit about the world around her.
I thought maybe it was possible she might have had a good reason for the "What difference does it make" statement for the particular question she was asked, but these revelations make me wonder more about that statement as well.
Who cares if our government is systematically subverting public accountability measures and lying about it? All that matters is whether they're on team red or team blue. It's fine to do it if you're on the blue team. You know they always have our best interests at heart. Hillary would never sit on the board of a company like this one, right?
"simply because she has a (D) behind her name"
and female plumbing
I seriously doubt that any politician is likely to go to jail in the present political climate, short of a smoking gun in their hand standing in front of a bunch of dead elementary school kids, the other hand full of bribe money from foreign criminals, with the video uploaded onto Youtube. Why? Not because the system is rigged to protect the powerful (though in many ways it is - see and compare Petraeus and Snowden or Manning), but because the political environment has become so hyperpartisan, and there have been so many witchhunts or perceived witchhunts, that roughly 30-40% or more of the country is primed to assume that's exactly what any sort of allegations against a politician are.
It's even more so with the Clintons, just because the average person is so desensitized to the constant allegations of scandal that have largely gone nowhere. It's entirely possible that Hillary did do something she should go to jail for - but try convincing those people, who have learned to ignore the constant cries of scandal and wrongdoing that have been lobbed against the Clintons for over two decades now, and that basically amounted to a giant nothingburger in the eyes of the public. Cry Wolf enough times, and well, don't be surprised when people are ignoring you when there really is a wolf.
I hope she was using Windows, we all know how hardened that is.
Not only was she running Windows Server (according to the AP article), but she was using Network Solutions for her registrar, even after the U.S. Postal Service and several other large institutions had their NetSol domains slammed to a registrar in the British Virgin Islands against their will; and for some reason the clintonemail.com IP address was changed to that same company in 2011. (This, of course, years and years after anyone with tech experience had dropped Network Solutions.)
After it was cleared by the government. And after she was assured everything to/from government employees was also on government servers such that there was no need to keep her copies around.
Perhaps she thought her firewall was an international border, and should be open for all.
were they more or less secure than the State Dept's servers?
There is a difference, and if you can't see the difference you're the worst kind of apologist.
The difference is, in case you're wondering, is that we'll never know the state of Hillary's server. Which is, absolutely worse. And if you're assuming the best case, the answer is still no, it wasn't, and we have proof of that already (Server housed in a Denver Apt bathroom!).
I'm guessing, this is your version of "What difference does it matter, at this point?"
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
It was super secure because it ran APPS, not LUDDITE software, and only apps can app apps!
Apps!
First, are you sure that it actually was extra-legal, or are you only repeating what others have said?
All that I know is that it has been reported that she had an e-mail server of her own. I could not tell you when it operated and I do not know what laws or regulations existed at what point during its operation.
At this point, so many contradictory, technically incorrect, and outright silly things have been said by talking heads about this that I'm simply inclined to not bother to judge based on it. This is like when the supposed expert from one of the news channels reported on the hacker 4chan and the images of celebrities he stole and put up on the Internet, it was so full of derp that there was no point in even bothering to pay attention other than as a drinking game of factual inaccuracies. This episode should be interpreted the same way when nontechnical people are doing the talking, be they Mrs. Clinton, or the congress critters, or the reporters.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I know its not exactly the same thing, but for the relatively smart people in both Parties, she is rather equal in embarrassment quotient to Trump.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Colin Powell used a PUBLIC email server, not a private one. Slightly different, and enough different that it matters.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I'm sorry, you misunderstand me. I am only referring to the incident listed in the article. I have not researched the topic enough to pass judgement on her other actions.
All I have to say, is if this were Jeb, he would be in jail already
Are you conveniently forgetting that Jeb did literally the exact same thing? He had a personal server, then decided what to forward for state archives and deleted the rest.
And so did Christie
And so did Jindal
And so did Rubio
And so did Huckabee
And while they no longer candidates, so did Perry
And so did Walker
I'm not excusing Hillary, because she did fail to follow security protocols. But lets not pretend that she's in some rare company, and lets not pretend that state level governments operate with complete transparency and that state governors could never possibly discuss classified or secret information under any circumstances.
Is this the best you can do to try to keep the "scandal" alive? Just because the RDP port is open doesn't mean it's actually RDP running on the port. I used to run SSH on the telnet port. And just because the IP shows as from the same server doesn't mean it is. Lots of people use DMZ's with port forwarding to isolate servers.
If one of us lies to a government official under oath or not, we are fined or go to jail (or both...)
Why doesn't this apply to government officials (of any stripe)?
--- Mercutio was right.
I'm sure the CIA, FBI and NSA enjoyed watching hackers behave like script kiddies in a computer store: "Woo-hoo! We hacked into Hillary's email server!! Oh, look!!! Emails that look like classified information!!!"
Colin Powell has also said he had two machines in his office, one for secure government correspondence (which is also subject to FOIA requests) and the other for his personal email account -- I believe this is vary much different then Hillary who only had a personal email account and stored all correspondence (government or not) on a largely un-secure personal server. While she "might" have successfully "wiped" this server, I am sure numerous state actors have the full monty (so to speak), and for a price... Or perhaps they are holding on to the emails to blackmail our potential future president -- no harm nor foul I guess...
None of what you said was true.
Or Powell and Rice each running their own servers while serving as Sec of State, which they both wiped clean upon leaving office.
Odd that the Fox fans seem unaware and uninterested in this- but Hillary doing it is literally Hitler.
Governor Sarah Palin wasn't privy to classified information.
Is there anyone who cares about this issue that didn't already hate Hillary for other reasons?
Do such people actually exist, or was your question rhetorical?
Of course. She's smart, certainly well qualified, and constantly shooting herself in the foot.
With credentials like that, the list of folks who dislike her is long enough to be confused with a LOTR script.
Except for a Socialist from the Green Mountain State, no competition for the Dem nod has yet materialized. Maybe tonight.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
> I'm saying she did something stupid, not malicious.
Leaving out that setting up a server to bypass public records laws is inherently malicious as far as the public interest goes, even if setting it up wasn't malicious, repeatedly lying to us about it most certainly is malicious. The fact that they can convince a non-trivial faction of America of non-factual things is a serious problem. It will continue to be a problem whether it's being abused by Ds or Rs and it was just as bad when the Rs were doing it and I was complaining about them.
If we want a responsible government, we can't let them off the hook when they deliberately and knowingly subvert the accountability rules, no matter which faction they belong to. If nobody can be held accountable, then the government controls us when it's supposed to be the other way around in a democracy.
Because Benghazi! Benghzai! Benghazi! ... Oops! Nothing happened.
While at the very least, Hillary set up a private email server (and a not particularly secure one) against government protocol.
Clinton hired a buddy to do it. This wasn't a government server, this was her own.
Are you fscking kidding me?!?!
The difference between negligence and gross negligence is that the person should know better than that last drink wasn't going to put them over the limit and run down people. If there's even any question you call a cab or in some cases have your driver take you home. You don't just hope for the best and hope it all works out. National security just doesn't work like that in the real world. Decisions - even poor ones done in stupidity are malicious - as you wouldn't have been entrusted with such concerns if it was felt and evidenced that didn't know how to handle them and proven that in the real world and training. My gods the endless training...
Knowing what you don't know is why people have advisors. If they fail - it is still your damn fault for trusting them - that's why you need to vet them to tell you know what they say/do. Even if they're wrong it's still your own damn fault. That's realpolitik and how things really work both today, in the yesteryear, and in the future. No one person can know everything or even a lot of everything. That's why we have lawyers, doctors, and some insanely complex other fields.
Hopefully programmers will somehow be able to get a big E in there somewhere too. God knows that I think there has to be some personal responsibility somewhere. Things just don't work unless there isn't. Please reference the US banking system as my citation there. It's almost all trust and then verify. Maybe.
Common dregs like even mere state Governors or maybe even Senators need to know how to handle stuff like advisors. You frankly must to get even that far. The sheer fact that this person obviously doesn't get that fact is disturbing. Their demeanor in interviews about this subject also gives the impression to me that such concerns about security/legality are for "the little people" to worry about things that. This makes me even more distressed that people take them seriously.
Astonishment abounds.
> I seem to recall Governor Sarah Palin using her yahoo email account for official business and not ending up in jail
It's a pity they haven't enforced these things more strongly.
But all the politicians love hiding from accountability....
Did she ever deny the existence of it? I see that pushed as one of her denials. When I've never seen that denial, and the denials I've seen were about hiding emails, sending classified emails, and other misuse of email, but not the existence of the email server.
Learn to love Alaska
While Petraeus did get dealt with relatively lightly, he resigned his job, and his government career is over. He also accepted the judgement of the system on what he did.
Note that Snowden fled before he could be dealt with by the system. So we don't actually know how he would have been dealt with. Right now, he's basically a fugitive. Would Petraeus have been less of a fugitive if he ran off with his journalist girlfriend to Russia to avoid prosecution?
I do agree that an arrest is very unlikely, but if Clinton left herself open to anything that would lead up to an indictment or arrest, she would likely have enough trouble to torpedo her candidacy, especially if it comes out before the primary.
I'm not sure Clinton should go to jail. I can't believe someone her age and in her higher management position truly understood all of the implications of having a server. What *she* is probably guilty of is being an affluent person who is probably used to getting her way and with technical advisers who should have known better but who did not advise her properly. I imagine that Mrs. Clinton believes she has "people" for making sure that her email is delivered to her in the most convenient manner possible. Those people failed.
Of course, she's still technically responsible, but it does feel like a tempest in a teapot *unless* she was shown to be communicating with that server in order to have government related conversations off the books. In that event, I would expect her to be slapped down hard.
Actually, they found exactly the opposite when the (D) operative hacked her account and they actually found nothing. But keep reading the DailyKos and HuffPo ... they never lie.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Hill's problem was that using a PERSONAL E-mail account as part of her OFFICIAL duties as Secretary of State was NOT ALLOWED both by State Department Policy and by the records retention laws and she knew it (She reprimanded one of her Ambassadors for doing the same thing). Who knows why, but she decided the rules didn't apply to her, or she didn't care.
If that wasn't bad enough, somehow she started sending/receiving classified information though this very same server. I'll put the classified information into two classes, stuff she and others wrote that ended up being classified, and stuff which was directly copied from classified sources. The first is bad, the folks authoring the materials should have known that it was classified and protected it as the State Department's regulations require, but I can give a bit of leniency here because they may not have been well enough trained to know. However, the stuff they copied directly from classified sources is OBVIOUSLY a problem. Somebody had to know they where violating the rules and removing the classification markings, there can be no excuse for doing that. Of course the question now is WHO? Did Hillary do it or one of her aids?
But if the above isn't bad enough for you there is the cover up..... "What server?" to "The server was only for personal use" to "The server wasn't used to send classified information" to "The server wasn't used to send information MARKED classified" (which is so far true, but only because somebody removed the markings).... Now we are discussing if the sever was secure, first it was "What server?:" to it was "totally secure", now it's likely somebody could have hacked it using VNC for Pete's sake. Next we will find out it wasn't being monitored as it sat in the upstairs bathroom being "wiped with a cloth" by Clinton herself.
All this is suspect, but let's face it. Nothing is going to happen to Hillary, guilty or not. Sure, some unlucky aid or two might be charged and even get convicted, but unless Hillary is as stupid as the "You mean wipe it with a cloth" answer sounded (and she's not) she already has a "get out of jail free" card to play which will be followed by "What difference does it make now?" and some variation on the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" defense the Clintons used during the Stained Blue Dress/Monaca Lewinsky thing...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
No, if it was Jeb there'd just be a different set of relatively smart people excusing it because of the (R) after his name. Bipartisan partisan hackery is a two-sided coin.
I am not a sig.
That's a good point. Someone else registered clintonemail.com (along with wjcoffice.com, and presidentclinton.com) with the Clintons' home in Chappaqua, New York as the contact address. Then all they had to do was convince a bunch of people like Sidney Blumenthal that it was her email and years later they could create a minor scandal for her, after she'd already lost in the primaries to Obama.
Bill Clinton can rape people, and it is okay,
Who did Bill rape?
You are making lots of wild acusations, but I see nothing in support of them. Did I miss this week's Conspiracy Times?
Learn to love Alaska
No, I do not have enough information to make a judgement. I have not seen the configuration of the mail server, I do not know when it operated, and I do not know the intricacies of the law during that period.
I have not seen any good reporting on the configuration of the mail server, on when it operated, or on the law during that period. I have heard that the law changed sometime after the mail server was used, and that people have been attempting to tie the operation of the mail server pre-law to the post-law rules.
I do not find for or against Mrs. Clinton for the mail server. If the timetable for a change in law meant that she was not breaking the law, then I would find in favor of her, rather than simply discarding this as something upon which to judge her.
And all of this is silly since conventional e-mail is an inherently insecure communications medium to begin with, regardless of the destination.
Stop trying to offend with style. Find some goddamn substance instead.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
That's a lie. She is being excused because she did what every (R) before her did, she didn't use the government server (if any). The law didn't require her to do so. She broke no law. She's seeing more scrutiny over this than Palin did for using Yahoo mail for official Alaska business, in violation of state law. Palin got a big pass from the (R), as well as Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell who also did not use government servers for email.
This gets a pass from (D) because it's obviously a political witch hunt, no more. Like the Planned Parenthood hearings, and the Benghazi hearings, both now admittedly purely political in nature. The (R) is spending billions of taxpayer money harassing the (D). Hillary has been under constant investigation for over 20 years, and nothing has been found.
Learn to love Alaska
Colin Powell used a PUBLIC email server, not a private one. Slightly different, and enough different that it matters.
It matters in what way?
Private and public servers both have their pros and cons. I suspect you'll just select the ones that support your side of the argument.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=...
The results of this search seem to say that the law was changed after Hillary was Secretary of State, but some people are still confused on this point.
No, I do not have enough information to make a judgement.
Said almost no one on the Internet ever.
I hope you practice such equanimity in all your online interactions./p>
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
repeatedly lying to us about it most certainly is malicious.
Name the lie. I've seen the accusations of lies against the Clintons for 30 years. But *never* have any of them stuck. And yet again, unsubstantiated accusations of "lying about it" being the problem, without actually establishing the lie.
The fact that they can convince a non-trivial faction of America of non-factual things is a serious problem.
Are you talking about Fox News, of the Kerry Swift Boating now?
If we want a responsible government, we can't let them off the hook when they deliberately and knowingly subvert the accountability rules, no matter which faction they belong to. If nobody can be held accountable, then the government controls us when it's supposed to be the other way around in a democracy.
Like when Palin use Yahoo Mail for official government business, and the Republicans rushed to defend her? Clinton asserts no accountability rules were broken, and nobody has been able to show otherwise. At some point it looks like a witch hunt, not accountability.
Learn to love Alaska
I'm not particularly outraged but the sloppy handling of the server situation has me concerned. So does Hillary's apparent lack of knowledge about the world she lives in.
All I have to say, is if this were Jeb, he would be in jail already.
Jail is for little people. Nothing would change if it were Jeb in trouble instead.
Anyone sending Hillary classified information was breaking the rules to email it in the first place, so her assertions that she was not emailed classified documents seems rational.
Learn to love Alaska
Just pretend that Hillary is a Republican and that Bernie Sanders & Elizabeth Warren have already been coronated president!
What, like, both of them? How did that happen? Was the constitution amended to allow for 2 presidents at the same time? Are you saying that one of them served a term, and then was replaced with the other? 2 terms? Were they biologically joined into one legal person that could serve as president? Was the country fractured into 2 countries and they were each elected as the president of one country? Was democracy suspended completely and a new oligarch came to power who decided that the country needed 2 presidents? Like, maybe a domestic affairs president, and a foreign affairs president. Did one of them just run for president in another country? What about Canada, maybe Canada was made a protectorate of the US, converted to a federal republic, and maybe Bernie was all like "I got this" and went to run Canada while Warren decided to jump over Joe Biden and get elected in the US? Is one of them the president of Puerto Rico? Is the non-US head of state of Puerto Rico even called a president?
I'm trying to get into your hypothetical, I just need more details.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I'm guessing, this is your version of "What difference does it matter, at this point?"
More like, "She didn't break a law, so stop spending millions of taxpayer's dollars investigating her."
Learn to love Alaska
Jeb had a private email server too.
AdFuel
All I have to say, is if this were Jeb, he would be in jail already.
Right, it would fit right in with the fine tradition we have of jailing politicians who misbehave, right?
I hope you're just being hyperbolic and don't actually believe that crap, it wouldn't help your credibility any.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
While at the very least, Hillary set up a private email server (and a not particularly secure one) against government protocol.
Nope. She did what Rice and Powell had done before her. There were no rules against it at the time. The rules passed after exempted the existing external email. They still haven't found a law or rule broken, despite billions of dollars of taxpayer money spent investigating the Clintons. You'd think the "small government" (R) would try to save money, rather than blowing billions on witch hunts and goose chases.
Learn to love Alaska
Malicious would be if Hillary left a security hole in the server with the intent to transfer state secrets to a spy. (Once again I only refer to the incident indicated in the article). I don't see any other way this could be considered malicious.
> repeatedly lying to us about it most certainly is malicious
I am trying to understand what "it" refers too. Lying about the server being secure? That is kind of a stretch.
She did what Rice and Powell did before her. Yet she's the first to have committed an error in doing so. Why?
Learn to love Alaska
But don't you realize that leaving a port open on her home server makes her history's greatest monster? Clearly, you're not paying attention to the GOP debates.
You are welcome on my lawn.
To be fair, Rick Perry thinks a "personal server" is the colored lady he hired to do housework.
You are welcome on my lawn.
All right, explain your position then. Provide us with the details that you must obviously have that the rest of us aren't aware of.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I seem to recall that when the whole email server thing first broke both of her predecessor's as Secretary of State did the same thing. Which to me, makes this whole "scandal" smells of partisan politics.
Not a single criminal complaint of "rape" against him. Some civil suits and informal accusations, but no formal signed accusations of rape, where the accuser would be liable for perjury for false statements.
Learn to love Alaska
"What difference does it make?" -- H. Clinton.
Honestly, who cares? It's a non issue.
The problem is that she put information that must be in the PUBLIC RECORDS (see FOIA) on a private server where she was the sole decider of what is or is not going to the public record. This screams all kinds of alarms for me. No, I cant say she withheld anything damning, illegal, embarrassing, incriminating or who knows what else. What I can say with certainty that all of her actions with regards to the server dont appear to be consistant with someone who isn't hiding something (wipe the HD -- emails trickling out after hearing "they've been turned over" already -- etc). And that fills me with doubt about her and her judgement.
How can we elect someone with this kind of doubt to become president? Only someone with some fake "situational" ethics can forgive this enough to pull the lever for her at the ballot box.
it would be just politics if she hadn't complained as a candidate that Bush was hiding things by using private email.
Clinton 2007 : You know our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps, about the secret military tribunals, we know about the secret White House email accounts.
Then she does the same thing. That's not partisan politics, that's being a hypocrite.
As for the RDP it could very well have been a redirect to another machine at the house and not the actual email server. It's on the same network but it may not have been the email server itself, unless the router config or network setup has been published.
So there's one rape allegation there. Which firstly is "a person" not "people", and secondly is merely an allegation by someone who has given multiple inconsistent versions of the story.
That, and why is it her "home server"? Was it physically in their home? Why wouldn't someone put it in a host of some kind?
Learn to love Alaska
As I recall, you're right, the email account was used for little of import, but I don't think it was hacked by some nefarious (D) operative. Wasn't it just some guy on a forum that guessed her password reset answers based on publicly available information?
If hackers with low skill levels could access her machine easily, there must be a number of caches of all the data she was trying to hide.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The "office" email server she should have been using may have also been poorly configured. We know it was poorly backed up because it crashed and data was lost.
If it was poorly backed up, it was likely poorly configured also because this suggests support in general was slack. At least her own server lasted longer.
We may be comparing a Ford Pinto to a Yugo here, except the Yugo has since died and been scrapped so that we cannot examine it (unless somebody kept an old scan record.)
Table-ized A.I.
Yahoo Mail has been hacked a number of times. And Palin wasn't put in jail for using a known insecure email service for official government business.
Palin wasn't dealing with top-secret State Department traffic.
In fact, Palin properly separated her personal and political emails from her "official" government email. The Yahoo account was her personal/political account, and there was absolutely nothing wrong with her having the account, nor did anyone find a problem (wasn't it the WP that set up a special web site so that all the Palin haters could carefully review every character? And no one found anything wrong.)
Finally, Palin properly preserved all her emails. H. Clinton deleted many thousands of allegedly "personal" emails without any oversight.
She did what Rice and Powell did before her. But it's only a problem when she does it. Why?
Learn to love Alaska
The winner-takes-all format of the Electoral College means that if you live outside of the 10-12 swing states, your state's representation in the Presidential election has already been decided. You don't have the power to flip 100K to 2M votes required to turn a solid blue state red or a solid red state blue.
If you're not in a swing state, you're better off giving that vote to a 3rd party candidate, and help him/her get more exposure.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
The "office" server she should have been using was ALSO not designed for confidential/secret info. Thus, the "home" thing is NOT the issue here (yet).
So far we don't know if anything she sent/received was secret at the time it was sent. That's still an open issue. We only know that some of it has since been classified (or should have been classified).
And if somebody did send her classified info, she still may not be culpable for it. Unless it's an obvious "special" message, it may not be her to job to determine classification categories anymore than it's her job to check server ports.
If somebody sends you a bad email, is it your fault or the senders?
If it's obviously a bad email, then the receiver should report it. But if it's subtlety bad (or secret) such that the determiner-of-badness is a specialized skill, then we wouldn't expect the receiver to also have that specialized categorization skill.
There's a lot of potential work-flow and responsibility paths here. The devil's in the details, which we don't have yet.
Table-ized A.I.
"Why?"
Powell and Rice didn't use email much during their tenure as SoS. Rice didn't use personal email at all for State Department business. Powell used a secured laptop with a state department email for the bulk of state department business with minor (his claim) non-state-department issues from his personal account (like house keeping stuff).
Albright didn't use email at all, from my understanding.
That's "why".
That leaves Clinton the last one of the SoS's who could have used email (information age) -- and she didn't use a state department account AT ALL. How can this not ring some alarm inside your head?
Translation: I am biased and choosing to stick my head in the sand on this issue.
Translation: I'm unable to cogently carry on a civil discussion or respond with valid points of my own, so I'm going to make myself feel clever and witty by reposting someone else's post again in an astounding act of me-tooism.
The very fact that you can point to just one incident in 2008 just goes to show that usually it does work that way.
And how were they supposed to know that? Perhaps if bars had breathalyzer tests for everyone.
I 've been having troubles with my eyes, so I went to an eye doctor and while they gave me a new prescription, it still did not address my primary eye problems. I'm still going through things with my primary care physician, but back to my eye doctor. I asked her to retest my near vision for my progressive lenses and she said that it wasn't magic and is adjusted relative to a person's age. It took me a bit to process what she said, and I came to the conclusion that we had a different definition of magic. In mine in order for something to not be magic, it has to be able to be affected by many environmental factors that going by a patient's age simply does not measure, and therefore should be tested.
You'd be surprised about just how much of the world operates with ideas like my eye doctor's notion of what magic is, but operate it does.
Perhaps. But I don't think it's the EXACT same kind of situational ethics. Nor does it make it 'right'.
You have to wonder what ailes Fox as even they wouldn't renew her contract.
I'm not sure how true it is, but I read somewhere that Palin didn't rate, or her viewership figures were dropping really fast, so Fox offered her a really low number on her next contract so that she wouldn't sign, then they could all just pretend it was a mutual thing.
Sounded plausible anyway.
Why is anyone making a fuss over Hilaries private e-mail server. Gov't comms are a mess. and then there's GWB43.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
From what I read Rice didn't user email and Powell used a public email service and only used it for a very small number of emails.
Her open server was compromised, and this is how the forces in Libya knew of the existence of the Annex. Too bad the GOP has destroyed any recourse over this with their recent comments; they where far closer to the truth than they ever knew.
what if the insecure email server leaked the info that lead to the militant's knowledge of Benghazi?
That leaves Clinton the last one of the SoS's who could have used email (information age) -- and she didn't use a state department account AT ALL. How can this not ring some alarm inside your head?
She's been investigated for years, and not one problem found. How many more billions of dollars investigating Hillary need to happen before your alarm is silenced?
There are records of every "official" email to and from her in the State Department servers. They have all been reviewed. Not a single one was found out of place. Not a single one was found to not be on the "released" emails Hillary disclosed. Not a single one contained classified documents. Not a single problem was found, and every single one was scoured.
So, sometimes where there's smoke, there's just a smoky BBQ, not an actual fire. How many more years and how many more billions of taxpayer dollars need to be spent until your alarm goes quiet?
Learn to love Alaska
Nah, Rick only uses illegal Mexican labor; he'd never allow an American to do work like that.
The key question that you are ignoring isn't the use of a non-government server by a government official, but rather, "What was it used for, and in what context?"
There are functions expected of members of an administration that aren't legal to perform on government servers, such as partisan political activity. That is a perfectly legitimate reason to use a non-government server.
Hillary co-mingled personal matters with political matters with official duties of a Ministerial nature, and had state secrets mixed in with her mail. That is wildly inappropriate. It is almost unbelievable that any person of Hillary's education and general exposure to government would do that. Almost.
Odd that you don't seem aware or interested in any of that.
I'm also pretty sure that most "fox fans" don't think Hillary is "literally" Hitler. Most of them probably have a very good idea who Hitler is, and aren't likely to toy with slinging that name around.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
He actually said he's only a Republican because it annoys them. So you are correct, even if you posted as an AC lol.
... but I'm still a Republican because I believe in a strong defense, because I believe in the entrepreneurial spirit that is so typical of the Republican Party in the past. But I'm having difficulty with the party now," he said.
"I want to continue to be a Republican because it annoys them," Powell said, prompting laughter from the audience.
"In Virginia, you don't have to declare a party
Powell seems quite upset about the recent actions of his GOP. "I want to continue to be a Republican because it annoys them," Powell said, prompting laughter from the audience.
... but I'm still a Republican because I believe in a strong defense, because I believe in the entrepreneurial spirit that is so typical of the Republican Party in the past. But I'm having difficulty with the party now," he said.
"In Virginia, you don't have to declare a party
Hillary's servers were not totally secure, but were they more or less secure than the State Dept's servers?
Not relevant.
Is there anyone who cares about this issue that didn't already hate Hillary for other reasons?
You mean like anyone interested in good government?
Boondoggles and misconduct are party agnostic and should be opposed regardless of source.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
> Name the lie.
They've changed the story every time they've told us about this server. That's not how it goes when you're being honest.
You've jumped on to point out all the R lies I was talking about. Yes, there were many. Yes, they were bad. But you've jumped into defense mode for the D team here when I'm happy to call out both parties. Maybe we'll be lucky and she won't lie about something like yellowcake or WMD, but I'd rather have someone who might implement actual transparency. Lessig and Sanders might be okay options. The Bushes have not rather bad about this sort of thing, though (see also: WMD). And no, I wasn't fooled by those lies, either, like when they tried to pawn it off on "bad intelligence" (though maybe you could claim it was "bad intelligence," if you're referring to IQ rather than secret agents, but I digress...).
> Clinton asserts no accountability rules were broken
You're worried about the rules, I'm worried that she set up a server to evade oversight. I don't even care if there was a law against it or not, I hate the very purpose for which the server existed--to keep email out of the archives. Now, you do have a good case that Washington accountability is already broken, I actually agree with you there! Both parties are a problem! Yes, the Rs too!
> Like when Palin use Yahoo Mail for official government business, and the Republicans rushed to defend her?
Yup! I don't like that either. I never liked Palin. I voted for Obama that time.
My problem is that people are just going to play team politics here and not let anybody on their team get punished, ever. Every time, we'll hear "they did it too!" (it's true, they did!) and then after a lot of fuss, everyone will still get away with it every time.
Everyone's being played here by both Ds and Rs. I'm sick of seeing the public get played for a fool, and even more sick of seeing it work.
The contact address for it was the Clinton's home, actually (cite: wikipedia). I don't think the hardware was actually there, though, but I've heard so many stories about it I wonder.
"She's been investigated for years, and not one problem found"
There's been plenty of 'problems' found. Nothing that has yielded an indictment -- but enough that a reasonable person should keep her clear of public service.
"There are records of every "official" email to and from her in the State Department servers."
Clearly you've no idea what you are talking about.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...
Those emails werent ON the state department servers. Because she sent them from her PERSONAL account to the DoD. How many other emails have yet to surface because they aren't on the State Department's archive?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09...
You know... if I see enough tell tale clues that a rat has been in my kitchen (chewed hole in dog food, for example) I can decide that there *IS* a rat without actually SEEING it. There MIGHT be a logical explanation for the hole, but as far as Clinton goes, every excuse comes with a lot more tell tale clues. Example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
And then this:
http://www.npr.org/sections/al...
And it was wiped....
She could be spitting your your face and you'd be saying "it's raining!" Please, I'm not saying "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the legal sense that she did anything illegal. I'm saying that a reasonable person could only conclude that she hasn't been forth-coming and should not be trusted.
(please note all my citations are either liberal or left leaning sources).
But don't you realize that leaving a port open on her home server makes her history's greatest monster? Clearly, you're not paying attention to the GOP debates.
Yeah, the moment I read the article I checked all of the servers in our enterprise for these nefarious "open ports". I needed to shut down 5000 servers because our tomcat servers have port 8080 wide open! Our web servers have port 443 open! I must have already been hacked because I lost connectivity when I closed down port 22 on all servers.
Since you don't have enough information, here are a few quick facts. The Inspector General (appointed by Obama) stated that Clinton sent top secret satellite photos. He said that information is classified top secret as soon as the picture is taken (it's not classified later). Shortly after that announcement is when Clinton started adding the word "marked" to her denials - "I didn't send any email -marked- classified."
Which is a bit odd, because failing to properly mark classified information when conveying it is a separate violation. So in terms of legal risk, she just admitted to an additional offense in an effort for better PR.
A brief chronology of Clinton's statements, from earliest to latest:
There is classified information on the server.
I didn't send or receive classified -documents- (an important change, after it was confirmed she sent classified information, she pivots to pretending it's the document that's protected, not the info.)
I didn't -send- classified documents. (After public confirmation she did receive them)
I didn't send documents which were -marked- classified when I sent them. (After it was confirmed she did send classified documents, which were classified when she sent them.)
That's the story according to Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration. Given their side of the story, I don't even need to hear what conservatives have to say on the matter,
Does Shodan HQ keep logs over time? :-)
Self Defense - A Human Right www.a-human-right.com
I missed a word. Her initial statement was that there was NO classified information on the server.
That changed to "didn't send or receive classified documents", then "didn't send", then "didn't mark".
If a port is open in the ports list and no one is there to service it can it still be hacked.
"I can burp the Battle Hymn of the Republic!!"
-Anonymous Coward
You are welcome on my lawn.
The dude who hacked Palin's email was the son of a state-level congressman. I'll let you guess which party they were.
There are records of every "official" email to and from her in the State Department servers. They have all been reviewed. Not a single one was found out of place. Not a single one was found to not be on the "released" emails Hillary disclosed. Not a single one contained classified documents. Not a single problem was found, and every single one was scoured.
Every single sentence in this paragraph is a lie. People won't trust you if you keep lying to them. Hillary is finding this out now. You should be finding it out shortly, because you have been all over this story on Slashdot spewing the same talking points as Hillary's campaign. As their defenses have narrowed, so have yours.
Tell me where open ports are codified into law on a personal server. It was her responsibility to not put classified material on network and what has been shown by the kangaroo poster and GOP is dubious at best. Not a Hillary supporter, but this sort of woman hate is reserved for neanderthals and republicans.
You guys with the Clinton hate, or Democratic evilness, or whatever aren't facing facts. A former first lady who plays the game as good as the rest is never getting touched. Not even Petraus 2.0.
If that's not enough, then you guys get your panties in a twist about open ports and OMG THE RUSSIANS ATTACKED AN OPEN PORT!!!! Do any of you operate a server without checking logs?
Seriously. The people that matter respect her. Nothing is going to happen. Move on.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I think we can safely assume Hillary Clinton did not set up the server on her own. Who did it? And what are that person or company relations with Hillary Clinton now?
Claims that Clinton was her own administrator are still not proven, however.
Play Command HQ online
I'm sorry, but a person isn't qualified to be president if they don't know which ports are open on their computer!
Play Command HQ online
Unless you actually probe what process is running on a port, the mere fact that it is "open" does not tell you anything except that it is not firewalled and that something is running on it. The thing running on it could be /bin/false via inetd, and hence any connection would get closed immediately after establishment, and before any data exchange and hence pose no security risk as there is no attack surface.
This makes this whole story political, not technical.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Powell didn't store top secret classified information on his account, thusly making it totally legal.
The debate is ongoing as to what, if any, of Clinton's received e-mails were truly classified.
He also didn't delete all of his email after he left office, which in my opinion is an open admission of guilt.
Ah, but he did. From the WSJ article I linked to initially:
President George W. Bush’s first secretary of state, Colin Powell. Mr. Powell used a personal account. He says that he didn’t save any of these emails and therefore could not hand them over to the State Department when it asked for them as part of a records preservation effort late last year.
“I retained none of those e-mails, and we are working with the State Department to see if there’s anything else they want to discuss with me about those emails,” he told ABC’s “This Week.”
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
There are records of every "official" email to and from her in the State Department servers. They have all been reviewed. Not a single one was found out of place. Not a single one was found to not be on the "released" emails Hillary disclosed. Not a single one contained classified documents. Not a single problem was found, and every single one was scoured.
That's not true. They recently found some she didn't turn over and numerous instances of classified information were on the server. Some information is classified because of where it comes from, including a lot of satellite imagery, and that was also found there.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
It's obvious - they have to play rock-paper-scissors each morning to see who gets to be president that day.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
And that was also wrong, from a public records perspective, but she wasn't in a federal position at the time, and therefore wasn't subject to federal records retention laws. She was also not dealing with classified material (at least, on a regular basis, I assume).
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
....that having her own server was "more secure" than using a State Department server.
No. Wrong. None of her emails are on government servers because she never used government servers.
If everyone else was sending to her from government servers, or receiving on government servers, why are they not all on government servers? Oh, they are.
Billions? With a "B"? No, a few million.
Nah, the Clintons (including Hillary) have been under constant investigation since the late '80s or early '90s, when they first looked to be headed to the White House. The sum of all the investigations targeting the Clintons has wasted much more than just the last investigation.
Learn to love Alaska
Why do partisan tribalists have such short term memory? Elected Democrats raised hell when the Bush Administration was using private email servers to hide information from the public and from investigators. Democrats like....Hillary Clinton:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Except that Powell did not setup his own server and the laws were different while he was Secretary of State and Rice only used State department server when sending official email. So besides all of that Hillary did the same as before her.
Ah, so the answer to Why? is "The other guy did it first, and you didn't complain as loudly for the one I like as the one I don't like."
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. I have spoken about both equally. It takes a lying partisan hack to assert otherwise.
Learn to love Alaska
She alleged that he raped her 20 years earlier, and didn't bring it up until he was famous enough that it would give her 15 minutes. Did she ever press charges or file a police report?
Learn to love Alaska
They've changed the story every time they've told us about this server. That's not how it goes when you're being honest.
Yet when I ask someone to give one of the stories that's false, none appear. That is exactly how it goes when you are lying to vilify someone without evidence.
Since so many are so sure that she did something wrong, why can't any of these many stories be quoted that contradicts reality?
I've gotten into trouble for changing stories myself. What I did at the party as a teenager elicits a different response when I'm telling Mom, vs the kids at school. Both may be technically true, with no lies, but emphasis and omission to paint the impression I'm looking to give. That's human nature.
I voted for Obama that time.
I've voted in every presidential election since '92, and never once voted for a winner. I've voted for major party candidates of both sides, and often 3rd party candidates, but never a winner.
Learn to love Alaska
Rice had a personal account with no oversight, and the only thing to prove it had no improper email is her word.
Learn to love Alaska
Nah, you can lie to some. You can't lie to someone who is investigating you of during sworn testimony and stuff like that but you can call your senator up and lie to them all you want - we call that lobbying.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Doesnt mean those services were running on them. You can run a VPN on any port you want - the standard ports are just for ease of configuration.
The law in question has not changed. It has been in place since the 1920s. Ignore the whole email and server thing. The mishandling of classified information is what was illegal and there have been plenty of reports that indicate the FBI has confirmed there were, indeed, some classified documents found during the forensics. Additionally, classification is based on content (by certain people) and certain documents that should be classified must be classified by certain handlers - of which she was and was trained as one or she could not have handled the documents to begin with. She had to know the rules, she had to know how to apply the rules, and she had to know what types of information would need to be classified if they were not already.
This part of the discussion has been glossed over and ignored. As it is likely the only thing that would result in a conviction, well, I have my suspicions. However, the above can all be verified by simply doing a search for the relevant information. How much of what is reported and is actually factual is up to you to determine for yourself. I've nary a nickel invested - I will not be voting for her regardless. I do like the idea of Sanders/Warren. I don't see that happening and I expect I'll be voting for a third party presidential candidate for the 9th time in 40 years. (I voted for Clinton's second term. I liked him.)
If I had to draw one conclusion from this whole email thing and use that to determine whether I should vote for her or not then it would be this: Factually, the email system was difficult to work through. She was in a position of power and obligated to work within that system. She had the power and obligation to delegate the authority to change that system. She did not change that system when she could have insisted that it be repaired and then followed up to ensure that it was.
Opinion: This is not a trivial thing and demonstrates a few issues with the most important being that people often think they are more competent than they are. A leader must be able to delegate authority, recognize their own deficiencies, and act accordingly by following up and by requesting additional information and help from people who are experts in the field.
Conclusion: I don't think she'll make a good president but I have a bunch of other reasons for thinking that. This speaks only towards this incident and is thus limited in scope. Finally, if she actually did willfully and knowingly mishandle classified documents then she needs to be stand before a judge because regulations don't work when not applied equally.
And yes, yes (it should be fairly well known/assumed/guessed that) I will absolutely say the same thing - regardless of the party affiliation, gender, race, creed, etc... I'm a pretty staunch Classical Libertarian (no, don't think economical model or those who are loud and 'represent' the party) am actually far more likely to vote for Sanders than I am for any other candidate offered at this time.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
wow. open RDP, open VNC. Can you spell hackers dream.
nothing to see here - move along
I dunno, 10 years ago if I were emailing somebody like hilary@clintonemail.com, I would assume that it's not their official email address, and I would be comfortable asking "what's your work address?, I've got official stuff to send you."
Actually, I feel like I'm doing it every other day these days, with all these stupid people putting private information in gmail accounts.
Knowing that people say flippant remarks and knowing that a specific instance is a flippant remark are two completely different things, and not knowing that is not knowing about the world around you. Besides, either way, she should have known that that remark would be taken negatively no matter what the reality is. Either she doesn't know what wiping a server means, and she hasn't shown much inclination of being technologically savvy, or she doesn't know that her statement wouldn't be seen as funny coming from her.
C'mon everyone, Bernie told me last night in the debates that the email server is just a sideshow.
The laws she broke have to do with "Official Records". At the time she did it, it was illegal to not maintain official records. She only handed over the emails later when she was called out on it, but even then, there was a 3 month gap in the records. Can you imagine any possible way that the Secretary of State would not send an official email, or even reply to a work email in three months?
She also broke the law by emailing classified information on an unclassified email system. This has been proven, she claims the information was not marked classified, but as Secretary of State, she is an original classification authority, meaning she should have known the information was classified, and therefore should have reported the spillage of classified information immdiately, instead of letting it fester for YEARS.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Also, the server was wildly insecure, this information isn't new, and was on Slashdot previously:
http://politics.slashdot.org/s...
You can keep your head in the sand if you want, but what she did isn't much different than the crimes hanging over Snowden's head. If it were you or I that did these things, we would be in Jail awaiting a federal trial.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
How is this woman still eligible for a clearance? As someone who unfortunately has seen a lot of the security clearance process, and has been punished for much less, I'm legitimately concerned she could somehow still get access after this. I suspect they want to revoke it, but would much rather avoid the bad PR in case she is voted in.
Everyone with any experience knows the quickest way to lose your clearance is:
Step 1: Lie about handling of classified information
Step 2: Lose clearance
Disclaimer: It's true, I don't want her in office anyway; and it's true I feel I have been held to uneven standards as a member of the working class. If it makes you feel any better, though, I'm sure she's not the only politician who's done this. I just don't think that should matter in determining responsibility.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...
As Secretary of State, she would be considered an Original Classification Authority. This means that she would be trained in recognizing what should be classified information, and what should be protected.
http://www.politico.com/story/...
According to that article, the number of classified emails is in the range of 400. Some of those messages should have been obvious that they were classified, especially for someone who is supposed to be the one determining the classification of information (an Original Classification Authority's job).
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the...
http://www.archives.gov/about/...
Saying that she didn't send or receive any emails marked as classified is a lie of omission. She should have known that certain things should have been classified, so even without the markings (which is likely to land someone in Federal prison), she should be able to identify classified information and handle it properly, including reporting the release of classified information onto her home email server.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I've heard them talking tough about him, but I haven't heard anyone state he's getting tried for treason, let alone summarily executed. I'd have to ask for a citation on that one.
I agree that he's certainly going to be brought up on some charges, but I'd imagine that would surprise no one. He may or may not have to do some time in the Federal pen. He did break the law, no matter what his reasons were.
To be honest, I don't think he's in any danger of his life whatsoever. If they haven't killed him yet, they're not going to kill him now. He'd just be a martyr. That would make no sense.
But such is the same for Clarence Thomas. No credible evidence other than vain accusation.
Or Bob Packwood.
In politics, accusation is usually enough for liberals to go apeshit crazy, unless it is Clinton.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
http://www.archives.gov/about/...
Next?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
http://www.albertpeia.com/oxfo...
Yeah, just is one rape allegation. Depending upon what the definition of "is" is.
And I bet you don't know Clinton's close association with a Pedophile on "Pedophile Island" (google it)
But keep telling yourself it is a vast right wing conspiracy (remember, that was the allegation during Monica's scandal, which later was proven by DNA to be ... not a right wing conspiracy)
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
http://www.albertpeia.com/oxfo...
Yeah only one rape. If that is all that matters.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
http://uscode.house.gov/view.x...
I don't know how much it changed, but the records management laws have been around for over 50 years.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Except that that was a lie.
Rice didn't use a public email server, and Powell by all accounts had a public mail account, and a State mail account that he used.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Oh, and she broke the law, here is the law she broke:
http://uscode.house.gov/view.x...
Now the problem is actually prosecuting her for that. She also emailed classified information, it was unmarked, but as an Original Classification Authority, she was one of the people at State that was the source of classification declarations, and so should have known if information should have been classified even when unmarked.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Except Jeb did practically the same thing:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/je...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/05/...
And George W. Bush did even worse, breaking the law in doing so:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
He even refused to turn over e-mails under subpoena: "The White House stated it might have lost five million emails"
At least 5 different investigations were hampered by his private e-mail account:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Unlike George, Hillary appears to have broke no laws, turned over all the data to investigators, and isn't hampering any investigations.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
A typical gov't office or department ALSO uses lowest-bidder. Lowest-bidder is common practice in large org's and gov't. The fact the office server died without good backups suggests it wasn't given any more care than the kind of consumer-grade you talk about.
Lowest-bidder sucks, but so far nobody has come up with a better systematic alternative. Just make sure the requirements are thorough and verified.
Table-ized A.I.
The top-secret stuff came in different channels.
From the New York Times:
I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the intelligence community, found the two emails containing what he determined was “Top Secret” information in the course of reviewing a sampling of 40 of Mrs. Clinton’s work-related emails for potential security breaches.
Note that even though those were only 2 emails out of a sample of 40 that were examined, there are over 30,000 emails that were deleted and so we may never know if they were classified or not.
Correction: should be "Whether doing Y is moral is another discussion".
Table-ized A.I.
Where was the hacking though?
Using a non-government server was legal until about a year after Kerry took over. I don't know about the status of the official records laws as they pertain to email, which is often but not always ephemeral in nature.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Not even Hitler left a port open on a home server.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The problem is that I've seen so many baseless accusations against the Clintons that I'm inclined to assume that they're all false unless and until I find otherwise. It's a result of too many Republicans calling wolf too many times.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Have you noticed the security rating large government departments get? I'm not at all confident that a State Department server would have been any more secure.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I don't believe it has ever been legal to use a personal server for official business, the records retention laws however were breached when she failed to turn over the emails, and even when she did turn them over, there was a three month gap, and since she wiped the server, that information might be lost. I don't know exactly when the gap lines up with, but if I had to venture a guess it would have to do with Benghazi as she still hasn't revealed what happened back then.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
In politics, accusation is usually enough for liberals to go apeshit crazy, unless it is Clinton.
The only one apeshit crazy here, is you. "Clinton is a rapist because - Clarence Thomas"
Clarence Thomas is a good example. People didn't like him, for whatever reason. So a distraction and an excuse was used to reject him without valid reason. Whine, whine, whine when it's done to a Republican, but drool, cheer and encourage when it's done to a Democrat. You are the biggest hypocrite here. I condemned both equally. You obviously don't. You take sides and root for the home team, even when they cheat.
Learn to love Alaska
That's incorrect. Hillary lied and broke several laws. She did not turn over all of the data to investigators either.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
That is the same incident. Hillary was hosting her government email on her private server that was left vulnerable to simple attacks, she did this to control what was turned over as required by the Federal Records Act.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Being Slashdot, it seems like a horrible misuse of the word 'hacking'.
IF Clinton was only accused once, you might have a case. The problem is, there is a long string of allegations against him, that continue to this day. Google Search Pedophile Island for a glimpse.
Go ahead, keep defending him, and you enable it to continue.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
It wouldn't be legal for Kerry to use a personal server, but I don't know of any laws against it when Clinton was Secretary of State.
Benghazi has been beaten to death, without evidence of wrongdoing on Clinton's part. A friend of mine finally resorted to saying she should have micromanaged the situation (from across the Atlantic and half the Mediterranean) better.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'm not defending anything, nor is anything I do or say going to stop or enable any of it.
You are simply lying to distract from your false accusations.
Innocent until accused lots. Is that how it should work?
Learn to love Alaska
Argue whether it was "hacking" or "cracking" if you want to. But it's unquestioned that at least the guy's father was a Democrat operative.
I did know that in fact - because it is referenced in the previous link. And I didn't claim a vast right wing conspiracy.
The link you gave isn't the one that was being provided as evidence for the claim being made, I don't actually care about American Presidents enough to do more than just read the link someone provides when they make a claim.
None of those sources claim Clinton emailed one piece of information that was classified AT THE TIME. It's idiotic to try and make an issue out of documents that were only later redacted. None of those sources show Clinton lied about one single thing. And the fact that "10 or so emails" disappeared isnt remotely comparable to the millions of emails the RNC conveniently lost, isnt illegal, nor does it show any willful act of deciept. So as I said, still no evidence she broke a single law, while Bush did.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Why does this myth persist? These laws are 50+ years old, they apply to all executive branches. Here is the law, and all changes that have happened to it recently:
http://uscode.house.gov/view.x...
If you read the law, it is quite clear that she was required to furnish her records, not hold onto them for three years to avoid a congressional investigation.
It is tough to collect evidence when you have someone refusing to turn over the email they illegally stored on a home server. The Benghazi committee has requested this info over and over and never received it. She should have had more guards in the facility, it was a warzone, why were there so few, and why were the solders held back? It hasn't entirely been answered yet. You don't reduce the number of guards at a facility when the ambassador visits. Unfortunately, since all the records were locked up for 3 years, it is hard to perform an investigation of what she did and didn't do in the situation.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
You're still wrong - some information is classified as soon as it's generated, even if it isn't marked "classified". Some of that information was found on her server - it was classified at the time, even if it didn't have the appropriate markings - that's how classified information works. She lied when she said she turned all the emails over. Not turning them over is, in fact, illegal, and it was when the RNC did it too. Their bad behavior doesn't excuse hers.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
At that point she has a duty to report the spillage. Failing to report those things is also an offense.
It's a wonder you were modded insightful... others have thoroughly explained why you're wrong here.
On the other hand, it might have been your vote that made your state a solid red or blue.
It was shown some years back, that mathematically the individual votors have more power in a sub-divided system, because there is greater likelyhood that their vote could swing a large block. Having a simple straight vote, each person would be less likely to swing the vote. Look it up.
Besides, the Electoral collage is set up to limit the power of the densly populated cities, so that the rural states are not always outvoted. In a straight vote the cities would always have a lock. It -does- work as designed.
How many more years and how many more billions of taxpayer dollars need to be spent until your alarm goes quiet?
Billions? BILLIONS? Really? How about lets keep to reasonable discussion, shall we? There hasn't been BILLIONS of dollars spent investigating Clinton.
Kind of surprised Jhon didn't get you on this point as well as all your others... I agree with his other points, that there are reasonable doubts about her integrity. But I already had that opinion from other debacles she has been involved in; she lost my vote and respect many, many years ago...
But then again, Clinton's home spun email server apparently was not breached compared to the official servers of the administration. Ports open does not necessarily mean much, if there is no service at the other end the open port does not help much.
18 USC 793 subsection F (bold added by me for emphasis)
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Here's some substance for you.
18 USC 793 subsection F
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
There was classified information in those emails and she should've known given her position. Also, as far as classified email is concerned, "conventional email" isn't used. You can't just forward or email classified information to a private email like that.
Yes, but have you noticed that the Hillbots pushing this defense are comparing breaches of non-classified systems (like Social Security) with classified systems (like the CIA)? Besides, if Hillary had used a government system, and that system was breached....that lands on whatever official was in charge of said system.
Whereas if Hillary's private email server was hacked by xyz, that's all on......Hillary. If you were SOS, would you want that axe to fall on your head, or someone else's head?
All I have to say, is if this were Jeb, he would be in jail already.
WTF?! Jeb's brother, Neil, stole 2 trillion dollars and bankrupted all Savings and Loans (while their daddy was in the White House) and was never even investigated... and you think Jeb would be in jail over an email server? Just wow.
Jeb is part of the ruling class, as is Hillary. Neither will EVER do any time in jail. The only risk they may ever face in their life is getting their heads chopped off by the masses. Literally. Vive la France or whatever. Heh.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen