Slashdot Mirror
State Dept. IT Staff Told To Keep Quiet About Clinton's Server (computerworld.com)
dcblogs writes this report from Computerworld: Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's decision to use a private email server ran afoul of the government's IT security and record retention requirements, according to a report by the department's inspector general released today. This use of a private email server did not go unnoticed within the Department of State's IT department. Two IT staff members who raised concerns about Clinton's use of a private server were told not to speak of it. Clinton was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013 and during that period she used a private email server in her New York home. This report by the Department of State's Inspector General about Clinton's use of a private server makes clear that rules and regulations were not followed. It says that Clinton would not have received approval for this server had she sought it. According to the current CIO, the report said, "Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs." However, the report notes, according to these officials, The Bureau of Diplomatic Security and IRM (Bureau of Information Resource Management) "did not -- and would not -- approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM [Foreign Affairs Manual] and the security risks in doing so."
It occurred to me, and this is a long shot, that actually the server was a honey pot and the information contained therein was misinformation, for foreign intelligence services to enjoy.
... I did say it was a long shot but it would explain the lack of an explanation for it. Otherwise her behaviour is inexplicable as long as you forget she's a Clinton.
I'm a total lefty, but Kerry, Albright, Rice, and Powell weren't running their own insecure servers which were hacked at least once that we know of. And none of those Secretaries of State claimed that they had done everything right in setting up such a server, and that it had been approved by the department, which the department subsequently denied.
Hillary Clinton either lied about this, or she was lied to by her staff. That the government has granted immunity to the staffer who set up the mail server leads me to believe that they've got her cold if she tries to claim she had no idea. I've been in IT for 25 years, and I've always protected myself by making my recommendations or warnings in writing to prevent just this sort of shifting of blame.
The Salon article today suggested that she just didn't follow State Department procedure, without ever mentioning that the department never sanctioned her server, or that her server had been hacked as a result of poor security. The article implies that other Secretaries did it too, so that makes it acceptable. Just absurd.
Slight correction to your post, from the article you linked: "But officials told Bloomberg that the FBI had managed to salvage some of the emails deleted by her staff, raising the prospect that Clinton's correspondence could eventually become public." SOME of the emails - no assurance that it was all of them. Other reports continue to turn up work-related emails in the wild from her server that were never turned over.
Even for people who can't stand Trump, he would be an excellent choice for president over Hillary Clinton.
If Trump were elected, the creep of Executive Privilege which has become a real problem in the balance of powers would immediately have it's wings clipped. There aren't gonna be a lot of arbitrary executive orders tolerated from a Trump Administration.
I don't think Trump would be elected for a second term. I don't even think he would want to be re-elected. He could be the 21th century version of James K. Polk, who settled a LOT of issues in the mid 19th Century and didn't seek re-election.
(don't wear a James K. Polk t-shirt on your visit to Mexico)
Guilty of what?
People keep saying that but I've not heard a single person quote a law she appears to be guilty of other than being a bitch. (which isn't against the law). It was stupid, it violated department policy and in my opinion nothing bad came of it, she was technically in charge of state and could set whatever policy she wanted. It would be like accusing the president of releasing classified information when he can at his will classify/unclassify anything he wants and the very act of releasing the information would be official declassification. Sometimes the boss does stupid stuff, but that's one of the advantages of being the boss.
I think a Trump administration might cause the left to re-think the whole "Every issue great and small should be decided in Washington DC" thing, and seriously support genuine Federalism.
For possible positives of a Trump administration... that's about all I can think of.
I'm not Hillary fan, but:
Didn't our last President use private email services, even though he was required to only use government services for official email?
How come so many people criticizing HRC aren't also mad at GWB for his using non-government servers?
After all, he deleted official Presidential emails on government servers despite the law to retain them...and he supposedly had the backups deleted too.
Why aren't these same people criticizing him? Or is that too long ago, or was he the wrong party to criticize?
Respectfully, Fascism is a *collectivist* ideology. It has far more in common with communism, socialism, and progressivism than it does with a fundamentally individualist ideology like true "classical" liberalism.
I always suggest that people who try to deny this watch Triumph of the Will. It helps explain how the Nazis *saw themselves*. They were absolutely a progressive, collectivist ideology.
That's why embezzlers are never punished, because it takes years for anyone to notice anything is wrong, or they pay off the right people.
Absolutely Clinton should go free despite breaking some of the clearest laws that exist. After all, she's just a dumb female, right? I guess that's your defense anyway.
I don't think I'll respond to whatever laughable followup you may have...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley