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."
This was a clear example of security through obscurity. The server was behind a NAT protected by a Huawei router. What could go wrong?
Guccifer isn't lying...
If nothing on Hillary's server was classified it should be released without redaction for full review and inspection by any party. That has not happened, and it won't happen. FOI requests regarding information on her server are denied almost as soon as they are filed.
There is no "truth" left in Government. The only option they have is to silence critics. Oh, and more circuses.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Rules and laws are for little people. Not for anyone named Clinton.
Never mind 30 years of scandals, this email server thing shows exactly how she thinks. The law only applies to the little people, not her. What she did may have been marginally legal, but if you or I had done this we'd be sitting in jail.
The 9 biggest revelations in the State IG report on Clinton's emails
Why Clintonâ(TM)s email problems are here to stay
Sorry for the repeated politico.com links. No affiliation, but I've reading my political news there lately. If you want to preserve your sanity, don't read the comments at that site.
Very likely... assuming the FBI & DoJ pass on charging her, which based on available information would be trivial.
*fingers crossed*
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
The depressing part of all of this is that it is obvious she is guilty, but it really doesn't matter. The politically powerful, whether the Goldman Sachs or the Clintons, will always be able to get away with whatever they want. Meanwhile our prison population is overflowing with "little people" who lack the political connections necessary to be free of the ire of the Federal government. Host an illegal mail server that is easily hacked. No big deal. Actually blow the whistle on Federal crimes and corruption. To prison with you!
All Americans are equal but Americans in authority are more equal.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
So she hired someone too inept to delete stuff PROPERLY. This is a bad omen.
100? Citation?
Perhaps, though he was at least smart enough to ask for and get immunity from the FBI & DoJ to cooperate with their investigation.
It's actually quite difficult counting the number of bad omens for her we've seen.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
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.
Politico's article is damning to Hill since they are a Left-wing news outlet.
They also seem to usually be pro-Clinton and anti-Sanders, but that may just be my biased view.
You were reading Salon... that's your first mistake.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
What _YOU_ don't realize is that plenty of us have Government experience. Considering you have a whole 3 posts attributed to your account I believe you are not an egocentric prick but much much worse.
I was going to add some stuff, but considering you are simply a shill I won't waste my time. I really wish Slashdot gave us the ability to track AC IP addresses, I'm guessing you are coming from a specific range in DC.. you know, that same one that edits Wiki pages all the time.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Hillary's business requirement was avoiding scrutiny and FOIA requests.
She got away with it for several years after leaving office too. It wasn't until researchers started asking judges why all of the secretary of state emails were missing.
So now Hillary treats it like a case of bad press stories... so she still might technically get away with it. Loretta Lynch/Obama have "discretion" over whether this gets referred to the legal system.
Most regular citizens are dumbfounded at the level of corruption and criminality. Hillary is counting on the public to get corruption fatigue by using redirection and the "everyone is doing it" defense.
Yes, lets prosecute people for crimes they didn't commit.
BTW, the FBI would like to have a chat with you, Mr Coward is it? Something about the Lindberg Baby and JFK assassinations?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Hillary Clinton failed to report several hacking attempts, grew afraid of opening emails
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
Why arent we talking about a systematic audit of the politicians who are also using exceptions to the government security standard? If you dont have records, fine, audit them all. There are commercial software packages that will do this for you.
"Everyone" was not using their political office to use the subterfuge of giving speeches to foreign government and multi-nationals to enrich themselves personally in their non-profit foundation.
Most of the press and public are not seeing the huge Clinton Corruption Campaign they conducted using Hillary's private email server. But the DOJ and others are now going through those emails with a fine toothed comb.
Hillary may not get jail for a personal server, but she may get jail time for selling out the US with "special favors" in her decisions for foreign entitities from which she received "donations" in the form of both speech fees and contributions to the Clinton foundation.
It is truly mind boggling that she & Bill thought they could get away with this.
Well, unless Bernie gets the nomination (and it would be nice if this blew up before the convention to encourage the superdelegates to make that happen), the choice appears to be Hillary versus Hitler's incompetent understudy. You really want Drumpf in the Oval Office?
Really nice when so called Liberals display, for all to see, their bigotry and racism when they think it's cool to do so. All their teary hear-felt beliefs go right into the drumpf-ster.
And you are clearly a loser anyway by Godwin's Law. "Hill-arious." (Well, not really.)
Someone else who values Fortran and PJL!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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.
We know she was hacked? That's surprising because I've been paying attention and I don't know she was hacked.
Then you are a self-deluded shill trying to appear balanced, but you are really, really, really bad at it. Your further statements prove you have absolutely no understanding, whatsoever, how real things work in the real world. You hear what you want to hear in your basement. Good luck with that.
The claim that the server was hacked has never been validated, nor has any evidence ever been provided. The claim stands as no more significant than the claim that the guy in Australia created Bitcoin. In other words without evidence it's not at all believable. The people that have made these claims are not exactly trustworthy sources.
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)
Sounds like incompetent IT staff were hired.
OMG we're being hacked by all these scans! Better shut the server down! Just goes to show how many incompetent IT people are out there.
Nobody involved is trustworthy. But only one it running for president.
I for one hope Lanzo has the complete archive.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Pro-Hillary PAC Spending $1 Million to Hire Online Trolls
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/...
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.
Pro-Hillary PAC Spending $1 Million to Hire Online Trolls
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/...
Moron with a 7 digit UUID thinks a user with a mid-6 digit UUID is somehow a hired troll.
You seriously think I'm taking the /. account I started in the mid-90s and hiring myself out as a shill?
I stole this Sig
Hillary is more Fascist than Trump. Fascism and Nazism were considered by nearly everyone on the left to be left wing before WWII. It was only after the massive war crimes that the left deftly relabeled them as right wing, and it apparently stuck. I know that most of you aren't old enough to remember that, but by God you could learn a little history!
Seriously, how much does being a Clinton shill pay? I'm looking for a side gig.
Intent is not required, only gross negligence.
Damages are not required, simply allowing the classified info to end up in an unapproved place is.
Ever stop to read & consider just one of the relevant?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
They's gonna be a buncha nervous IT guys in the gov if the Hillary wins. Paraphrasing Tony Soprano, revenge is like serving cold cuts.
The above comment is from a shill, maybe paid.
The hacker, who hacked her email server twice, is currently in jail in US custody. Not only was her email server hacked by a foreign hacker, they have him in jail admitting to it. The fact that you pretend that hasn't happened is just one more example of a leftie having to outright knowingly lie to make their point.
There's nothing inherently "left" or "right" about fascism, especially not within the US today, where both sides are firmly committed to it's ideals (the control of both industry and government by the same select group)
More to the point, Hitler isn't regarded as a monster because he was fascist. He's regarded as a monster because he was a democratically elected leader who built a power base on racism and twisted nationalism, and then used that power to commit some of the worst atrocities ever seen in the "civilized" world against his chosen scapegoats.
THOSE are the parallels I fear with Trump - his understated demonization of Muslims, Mexicans, Chinese, etc. as scapegoats, and the open bigotry and violence he's already inspiring just by running for office.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
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."
So, if they had known about it, they would have taken responsibility for securing it. I wonder if anybody ever looked at her email address? Obviously, coming from her own personal server, it wasn't on one of their State Department domains. So, either they did know and did nothing or they really are as inept as we all thought. Of course, option 3 is both are true.
Not only do we know Hillary has broken federal laws, Hillary has also started at least one war entirely on her own (Libya), and frankly in what should matter to at least Slashdot people is directly responsible for the death of an IT worker who just happened to be at the U.S. embassy in Libya when it was attacked. But I guess you don't care about him, do you? You just want Hillary to be elected, no matter the costs to the rest of us...
Meanwhile Trump has broken no federal laws, and has never started a war of any kind, and actually knows how to use things like Twitter. Do you want an imbecile technophobe who cannot even drive as president, or someone who actually knows what computers are and uses them?
Obviously if Sanders was running he would be the best choice but Queen Hillary is not going to let that happen, now is she? Her ability to block the will of the DNC primary voters is to you I am sure just another sign of how much she should be president, because female!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It doesn't matter how senile Hillary has gotten, if she broke the law she broke the law and needs to at least go to trial. They can factor in her technical inability in sentencing.
But we all know that will not happen, making a mockery of the entire notion of Secret/Top Secret.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Does anybody have the specific text of the policies and/or laws she allegedly violated? Emotions run high on this, and therefore I'd like to see it directly from the horse's mouth (no, that's not a Carly joke).
Table-ized A.I.
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?
Why, was Hillary's email password so super-duper complex he couldn't have guessed it? What, you think Hillary 'wipe - you mean like with a towel' Clinton, the woman Aides described as 'easily confused' came up with a password that included both upper and lower case letters, one or more digits and a punctuation mark? I bet it was something like 'Iluvhuma', 'pantsuits' or 'chelsea' - maybe even 'hillary2016'...
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.
The policies state that the person is to leave copies of all work-related emails at the time they leave duty if using a personal/outside email system. Hillary's spokesman has maintained that if regular forwarding or CC'ing is done, then the State Department will have a copy. The "rule" didn't state the format of the copies, only that it had to be done. It seems that technically, the CC/forwarding process would comply.
Because the internal email system hiccuped, they allegedly couldn't verify if this was actually done properly.
I've never seen a clear statement on why cc/forwarding wouldn't comply. Anybody?
Table-ized A.I.
Take your scare tactics elsewhere. You're a fool if you think HRC and her cronies will be any better than Trump. The DNC is throwing the election by forcing through an unelectable candidate. She was unfit in 2008 and she is even worse now.
you think Hillary 'wipe - you mean like with a towel' Clinton
Is this supposed to be some kind of Trump-inspired misogynist insult?
What? He's QUOTING HER. A reporter asked her if she wiped the server before allowing the FBI to see it. And she said, "What, like with a towel?"
I know, you already know that, and you're hoping that other people don't so you can pretend otherwise. Just another Shillary, trying to distract from her own words.
you think Hillary 'wipe - you mean like with a towel' Clinton
Is this supposed to be some kind of Trump-inspired misogynist insult?
What? He's QUOTING HER. A reporter asked her if she wiped the server before allowing the FBI to see it. And she said, "What, like with a towel?"
I know, you already know that, and you're hoping that other people don't so you can pretend otherwise. Just another Shillary, trying to distract from her own words.
I'm sorry if I haven't mentioned every Hillary quote out there.
I thought the poster was referencing one of Trump's debate insults.
I stole this Sig
There's nothing inherently "left" or "right" about fascism, especially not within the US today, where both sides are firmly committed to it's ideals (the control of both industry and government by the same select group)
Haven't been paying attention to universities? Haven't been paying attention to progressives the last 15 years? Oh boy are you in for a rude awakening.
Om, nomnomnom...
No, it really isn't. Fascism is about the consolidation of power, pure and simple - uniting the two major axes of power, political and economic, into the hands of a single ruling cabal. Collectivism is merely one fraudulent banner under which it can be accomplished, much like communism, capitalism, etc. None of which are actually ideologically compatible with fascism, but so long as the people seizing power keep saying the right things, and keep the populace distracted enough, most people manage to overlook the fact that their leader's actions are in direct opposition to their words.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
If you have to choose between SJW's and Nazis,
The scary part is that the Nazis really believed that they *were* social justice warriors.
> Fascism is about the consolidation of power, pure and simple
Yes, and they did that because they knew what was good for everyone. They forcefully robbed the 1% of their day (Jews) who were the bankers and moneylenders they blamed for their poverty. They worked hard to "improve" society by going after the least popular people of their day.
It's literally no different today where some groups want the government to control everything for our own good and to just gang up on anyone who dares say that might a bad thing to allow.
My pet personal "conspiracy theory" is that her server was hacked, and that's how those "crazy African/Arabs" learned about the true extent of the CIA's "The Annex" facility there. Possibly hacked by the FSU, who passed the info along to their operatives in Libya, who then used it to stir up the locals. That a weapons shipment that the CIA was trying to round up and get out of Libya was used against the CIA seems to indicate that whomever actually did this knew what was going on there. The State Department was running the whole show; it's likely there was quite a bit of info about The Annex on that server.
Something I have not seen is what was the top level domain on Hillary's e-mail address she was using?
Was is something official like: Hillary@state.gov (or secretary.of.state@state.gov)
Or was it unofficial like: Hillary@clinton.org (or secretary.of.state@clinton.org)
If she was using the official e-mail address, then someone in the administration of the top level domain .gov (or state.gov) would have had to be involved in redirecting the e-mail to the Clinton's private server.
Disclamer: I am a 65 year old Bernie supporter
God I love left wing projection, it must be nice being able to blame all of your problems on the other side without a moment of self reflection or awareness.
A lie requires me to know that what I am saying is false... care to support that claim?
No? You lament a lack of facts from me (despite me highlighting just one law she can be convicted under)... but offer nothing yourself... this is my shocked face: :|
If you bothered to pay attention to the available facts and use your brain (I'm sure you have one, it's just atrophied a bit from lack of use), allow me to educate you:
1) True or false: Hillary is known to have had at least one spy satellite photo on her server which should have been labeled "TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN", a image which did not originate with the State Department so the original classification would apply.
2) True or false: Hillary's private email server was authorized by the State Department or another federal agency to store classified information.
3) True or false: Hillary is known to have been briefed on her requirements to properly handle classified information and signed a document confirming her acceptance of policies, including criminal penalties for violations.
Answer Key:
1) True: http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...
2) False: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
3) True: http://freebeacon.com/politics...
Given the law I cited above doesn't require 'malice' or 'intent', but simply 'gross negligence', it's not at all a stretch to suggest that Hillary was negligent with the setting up of her server that any reasonable person would expect would see classified information traverse it... and given the fact the server was not a 'proper place of custody'... per instance of classified information on her server, she could be looking at a penalty of "Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
How much does being a Hillary shill pay? I'm looking for a side job, and unlike you morons, I actually have a grasp of facts.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
something@clintonemail.com
Part of it was wealth, but a bigger part was fame. A problem most people have in court is that the first interaction any of the jury has with you is seeing you sit at the defendant's table and people tend to have a bias that if you are there, you did something to deserve being there (which to be fair is an accurate bias, just not one they should have ideally). So you already have one strike against you starting out. Famous people don't have that. The jury knows them from another context and so views them more favorably initially.
Another major issue in that case was police misconduct. It is all but certain that they did indeed fabricate evidence and of course the defense was able to use that. The state did a real shit job with their case and the defense could exploit that.
As an example of something like that happening to a poor person on a small scale: My friend used to be a public defender. He had a client who had been arrested for tagging (graffiti). Kid sure as shit did it, but the cops were full of it with the arrest. They didn't see the kid do shit. They saw the graffiti, saw a kid who they figured probably did it, searched him, and found Sharpie markers and arrested him. Well, my friend got the case tossed, because the police had no reason to search him, and carrying markers isn't illegal. The state fucked up its case, so out it went.
Of course said kid was pretty stupid, did it again, but this time the cops just waited to make sure to catch him in the act. He didn't get off a second time.
So instead of the barons, dukes and earls from Europe the US has Clintons, Bush and Kennedy's. I get it.
But no immunity from the CIA secret detention team when Clinton would become president. Then he'll simply get an "accident".
They used the wrong kind of cloth.
No, no, no. You make a propaganda movie to influence how others see you. The Triumph of the Will is how the Nazis wanted German to see them, and indeed the word "socialist" was quite popular at that time in history, which is why they hijacked it in "National Socialist".
Of course, what they did had nothing of the "socialist" part. They were heavily funded by the wealthy industrialist class (Krupp is a name among a hundred others), they were against abortion and for high child-bearing rates, were fond of guns and trained children with toy guns from an early age, stressed competition and survival of the strongest, had good relations with high clergy, including the Vatican, to the point that they helped hiding many Nazi war criminals after WW2.
Then of course there is the issue of "scientific" racism and the idea of master race, persecuting political enemies (guess what, almost all in the left side of politics), invasion of the Soviet Union, persecution of Jews (an age-old right-wing conspiracy theory used to provide the masses with an easy scapegoat).
I get what you are doing, trying to pull off the Goebbelsian Big Lie by associating the Nazis to your political opponents, no matter how historically groundless and ridiculous the association is. Maybe you believe it yourself. I would suggest you read more about the Nazis, you might end up liking them a lot.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
So you're saying he'll end up committing suicide with 3 shots to the back of the head and rolled up in a carpet?
Fascism and Communism are two sides of the same coin, totalitarianism. The difference is that while the leaders of Communism lie about their intentions via their actions, Fascism up-front about their ambitions and goals; for the most part anyways.
All you need to really understand is this: There are two types of people in this world; those that wish to control the lives of others, and those that don't.
Life is not for the lazy.
While an LLC affords some protections against personal liability, an LLC won't protect you if commit a crime. All states will not excuse you for personal action - especially if by criminal, fraudulent or negligent personal actions. The LLC will protect the owners from actions for which they are not directly responsible.
And, she will be watching it from her backyard. LOL.
While I detest her, she never said that she could see Russia from her backyard - that was an SNL skit.
C. All of the above. I choose C
You're confusing political and economic systems. As well as propaganda and reality.
Communism is strictly an economic system, which got it's bad name largely because it was used on a large scale in the first half of the last century as a convenient false banner to hide the totalitarian goals of those running the show. You can tell that it was a ruse from the beginning though because one of the central tenets of communism is that the workers own the means of production - for that to be true when the government owns the means of production, the workers must own the government. And frankly, I don't think *that* has ever even been seriously attempted on a large scale within recorded history.
Democracy is the only political system I can think of that even attempts it, but frankly I think we're still a *long* way away from figuring out how to keep the government answerable to the people. When I'm feeling cynical I would go so far as to say national democracies, thus far, have been primarily used as false banners to placate the populace while the elite continue to run the country mostly as they see fit. Unless and until that problem has been successfully solved, it's safe to assume that any form of government run "communism" is nothing but an attempt to rouse the masses to back a transfer of wealth and power from one group of elites to another.
Of course, lest I give communism too bad a rap, we should contrast it with unrestrained capitalism, which makes very little attempt to hide the fact that it's entire purpose is to concentrate wealth into the hands of the few. Who will then, inevitably, do everything they can to subvert the government to serve their own ends. It utilizes resources far more economically efficiently than any centrally planned economy has thus far managed, which I suppose is good, but the evidence from every nation that has attempted it thus far suggests that wealth inevitably flows uphill, and government inevitably bows to wealth, making it little more than a comparatively gentle path to fascism.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
You're confusing political and economic systems.
What's to confuse?? They are justly conflated. They're one in the same when you get right down to it. One shapes the other.
As well as propaganda and reality
Propaganda, sadly, more often than not shapes reality. Ideally it shouldn't, but history has proven otherwise.
Life is not for the lazy.
you think Hillary 'wipe - you mean like with a towel' Clinton
Is this supposed to be some kind of Trump-inspired misogynist insult?
What? He's QUOTING HER. A reporter asked her if she wiped the server before allowing the FBI to see it. And she said, "What, like with a towel?"
I know, you already know that, and you're hoping that other people don't so you can pretend otherwise. Just another Shillary, trying to distract from her own words.
I'm sorry if I haven't mentioned every Hillary quote out there.
I thought the poster was referencing one of Trump's debate insults.
Here you are on a tech-site pontificating like you actually know what you are talking about.
Turns out, by your own admission, you are completely, totally, irrevocably, mind-numbingly "I gets my 'facts' from MSNBC," stone-cold clueless.
But you can be triggered right on cue... like a trained cat, so you have that.
"...they were told not to speak of it." And where did that order originate from? The article only indicates that it was the director of IT that told them that, but did anyone tell him to relate that order?
That's true ... but they also had a nationalist thing as well, and the Republicans think DC should favor a pro-US foreign policy.
Blows my mind that anyone inside the US could want anything other than a pro-US foreign policy.
During Clinton's SoS tenure, the post of Inspector General was intentionally left vacant the entire time. The IG is a presidential appointee position and the OIG pointed out that the SoS IG vacancy was the longest of any of the IG posts. Had the IG been in place at that time, that official would had not allowed Clinton to exploit the private server and abuse the classification system without government oversight.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
"I'm a total lefty..."
It's a good thing you mentioned that, 'cause you might have been kicked out of the club otherwise. Hehe.
Just maybe that's because she only deleted personal stuff - or stuff she honestly didn't think was important. So she didn't see the need to delete it in a way that prevented recovery. That doesn't excuse using the server. It just maybe suggests that she didn't use it to intentionally compromise the security of the US - or pass US secrets to our enemies - as some Clinton haters are all too eager to assume.
The simplest explanation also makes the most sense - and all you logic hounds would agree if you weren't blinded by your politics. She used a private server because she didn't want personal emails made public in the case of an FOIA request. And given the enemies she has, an FOIA request on any flimsy pretext (yes, a non-existant 'coverup' of what went on in Benghazi is just such a pretext) was a sure thing.
None of that makes it a good idea - so sure, that's a knock against her candidacy. But it also doesn't make her Ethyl Rosenberg. Nor does that make Whitewater the equivalent of Iran/Contra. Even Ken Starr admits that - and he oughta know.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
What the left really needs to re-think is the whole voting system, and pushing for eliminating the Electoral College and our current first-past-the-post voting system used in the national elections. The left is supposed to be the side that's all for making changes, so this is really their domain, but they've never pushed for this.
Heck, even the Republicans might be interested in fixing this problem now, since Trump has ruined their plans and split their party.
This means all other scapegoats; homosexuals, abortion, birth control, religious freedom, are being ignored by him. It's fascinating that he's running on a Republican platform yet no-one is asking his position on these vote-buying issues.
They did ask him about the whole transgender bathroom thing, and he said he thought it was dumb and that it wasn't a problem, and that TG people were welcome to use whichever bathroom in Trump Tower they were comfortable with. Caitlyn Jenner even tested this successfully.
Remember now, Hillary was all in favor of DOMA and against gay marriage, until it became politically expedient for her to switch sides and be in favor of gay marriage. Trump however has gone directly against current conservative ideology with his "I don't really care which bathroom TGs use" position, and he doesn't seem to be suffering for it.
He has made a few lame noises towards supporting more conservative positions on abortion and religious freedom, but they seem pretty obvious attempts to placate conservative voters because he's said contradictory things before. So he's not really much better than Hillary in this regard, but he's definitely not a big social conservative, nor is he pushing an extremely socially conservative platform. What he's shown, really, is that mainstream Republican voters aren't that conservative, or at least don't care that much about their President being so conservative. They're largely disaffected working-class white people worried about economic problems, and think that he's their best bet with his more isolationist policy proposals.
No suicide on a park bench, found by a jogger in the early morning, just after the grass was fertilized the day before; so no reliable GSR test could be made.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The fact that you pretend that hasn't happened is just one more example of a Hillary supporter having to outright knowingly lie to make their point.
FTFY. Don't lump all the lefties in together. Roughly half of them despise Hillary.
The "regular" office email system was NOT designed for classified materials either: it was rather generic. (A separate system, which is not typically characterized as "email", was intended for the classified messages.)
You imply she used her Pinto to transfer goods when she could have used the company's Lexus. BUT, the company car was a actually Yugo.
The implication that her decision put info at risk is false.
In fact, the regular office email system was eventually hacked.
(Putting classified materials on the regular office email system would be a mistake also. Whether that actually happened is still an open question. Much if not all of the reported classified stuff found was retroactively classified.)
Table-ized A.I.
No. He will commit suicide with 3 shots to the back of the head, roll around on the carpet, die in a park under the jurisdiction of the agency least able to investigate while leaving no blood there, and then his office and home and whatnot will be ransacked for national security purposes.
Rumor has it that Putin has more of Hillary's Emails than the FBI does, and that part of the reason that he got ballsy enough to invade the Ukrane.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Personal going through work isn't a big problem, if an investigator sees personal he should ignore it, if business goes through personal the investigator never sees it and evidence could be hidden.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The FBI does this all the time. Interrogate someone until they say something that does not agree with what the interrogators believe and charge them with lying to a federal officer.
Regardless of names of containers used, some are approved for use, others are not. She made the conscious decision to use one that was not.
She also went on to delete emails which she did not have the right to destroy per the Federal Records Act and State Department rules which implement the law.
I've not made that implication, only that the content was in an unapproved location.
The fact that she and her staff did not report suspected hacking attacks though does suggest that the content may have been at risk (so there you go)... and they failed to report it as required.
The independent IG, appointed by Obama disagrees. You should try reading the report, it's pretty damning.
False. Documents which should have been labeled classified on day one, often items 'born classified' were not. We have at least one email asking a staffer to send a document in an insecure means.
I've never worked for government, nor have I ever had or sought a security clearance... yet even I know that an NSA provided satellite image starts off classified until they dither it down a bit wider distribution (so as not to show full capabilities).
You are saying Hillary Clinton, a person who was trained at least once on recognizing classified information, it's proper handling and signed a document certifying this knowledge and applicable criminal penalties... simply never knew?
Shame for her, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Yet you can offer no counter evidence other than Clinton campaign approved talking points... we will see in the next month or two who is right... and given the IG report you keep on ignoring, it's pretty clear the degree of illegality she has committed.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Please elaborate. Which ones?
The State Dept. server WAS hacked. They were BOTH Yugo's, so there.
The "born classified" thing is contentious and nebulous. It's not clear-cut, like an SQL WHERE clause.
That's the GOP's interpretation. She claims it was short-hand shop-talk that was misconstrued. Whether that's true or not we don't know yet; we only have 2 varying interpretations of a terse message. Your bias is showing now.
Table-ized A.I.
See the IG report, it echo something seen externally... there are large windows when there are simply no emails. Are we really to believe that she didn't send/receive any emails during periods she was known not to be on vacation in a location without cellular access?
And the State Department reported that hack, didn't they? Unlike Clinton. Again, one acted in conformance with law, the other didn't.
Only if you take your thinking cap off and try to find excuses. When it comes to NSA provided spy satellite photos, it's pretty clear cut.
It's also the thinking of anyone using common sense.
Yes, nothing anyone ever says on the left says what it means... it's always out of context.
Except Hillary's credibility on this subject keeps getting called into question. She says there was nothing classified on the server, turns out there was. She said there was nothing 'marked' classified, then we find out markings are irrelevant. She said the server was fully approved and ok with current law/rules, yet the IG says otherwise. She says she turned everything over, yet we know there are windows where there are no emails. She said she was fully willing to cooperate, yet she refused to meet with the IG.
With the exception of the claim that she shouldn't have used a private server... when has she said something on this subject which has turned out to be true?
Hell, she claimed she did it only for the simplicity of carrying one device... yet email footers show windows where she was sending from multiple devices during the same times.
Bias supported by facts.
Unlike most paid Hillary shills, I can read the applicable laws & reports and make an independent judgment as to just how illegal she has been... and in the coming weeks, hopefully the FBI will not be overruled by the DoJ and you will have no choice but to finally see.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
She often used the phone. Anyhow, until somebody finds direct evidence of deletion, it's hearsay. Gaps are only curiosities, NOT direct evidence. You don't seem to know the diff.
There's been no direct evidence that her server was actually hacked during her tenure. Sorta kinda looked like is still sorta kinda. (Could have simply been a DOS or mass spam attack, based on some of the symptoms I've read about.)
Re satellite photos, the articles from reliable sources merely say that information "obtained FROM satellite photos may have made it's way" into her emails. It's indirect and speculative.
I guess I don't have common sense then. I've read her explanation of the "remove headers" event several times and it's a perfectly PLAUSIBLE explanation. We in the public don't have the actual "results" of that changed version yet, so I will give her the benefit of the doubt until it's directly proven she did something sinister.
It appears your political bias is tainting your interpretation of incomplete information. I suggest you take yoga or something to remove the bias.
That has NOT been directly proven.
That's not what happened.
You are splitting elephant hairs. 3 devices is still better than 4. And I've never seen usage stats on those to devices to see if they were common. You fill in the blanks with Fox Colored Glasses.
Table-ized A.I.
It's a darn awful shame I never reveal my full hand when discussing thing such as these, it makes it far more fun later when the less informed opt to challenge me.
Phones, plural... and the iPad.
It is acknowledged, a block of ~31,000 emails which Hillary directed to be deleted which she deemed as 'personal'. It is also acknowledged that she turned over some 55,000 pages of emails were turned over in printed form which were deemed 'work related'.
Even if we ignore the multiple demonstrably false statement she has made with regards to her server usage (most of which you ignored out right, and one you were wrong on (more on that later))... we need to trust that she was honest and turned over all work related emails.
Did she?
Reports say no:
http://www.politico.com/story/...
http://www.theguardian.com/us-...
At the very least, that's perjury given she certified that she had turned over everything... worse if the FBI's recovery attempts turn up additional work related emails which she failed to turn over... something you or I don't have access to, but that available info is supportive of and you have federal felony charges under the Federal Records Act.
Are you that confident in your use of the delete key? I'm not when 10 years per document is the potential result.
Knowing for 100% sure that they were successfully hacked is not a requirement, only that it *may* have happened. Given the emails reported by the IG, again we see Clinton and her team were negligent with regards to not reporting the potential incident.
Reliable sources not cited... seems to be a trend with you.
How much does being a Clinton shill pay? Because if you actually read up on the subject you'd know this was false, even a year ago.
And that's just an early version of the report. Again, clearly you haven't read this weeks.
Clearly not, you read as if you've spend quite a bit of time as an unsuccessful defense attorney, ie "isn't it perfectly PLAUSIBLE that my client was on the planet Mars at the time of the shooting?".
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
I beg to differ - most of the people I know have little interest in controlling other people's lives. It's just that the people who strive to attain positions of power seem to be primarily drawn from the first group. No doubt because the cost/benefit ratio of politics is much more appealing to bullies than altruists.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't even know what ethnicity "Drumpf" comes from. What I do know is that the psychoacoustics of the name seem to much better capture his buffoonery than does "Trump", which obviously draws upon the positive connotations of the common word "trump".
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
You could be correct, and I occasionally lean in that direction myself, but I fear it may be overly optimistic considering the acceleration of executive overreach across the last several administrations. If graced with yet another deadlocked congress it seems unlikely that they would unite to move against him, especially since it seems extremely unlikely that he would do anything to threaten the profits and privileges of the wealthy interests to whom almost all politicians ultimately answer.
It seems to me that in Trump we would likely see the presidency pander to the wealthy elites to a degree not seen in generations, while the problems caused by the sudden acceleration of the already nearly untenable wealth inequality would be even more loudly laid at the feet of those scapegoats least able to defend themselves.
I find the the parallels to Hitler's condemnation of the Jews, who were already generally disliked, to be a little too close for comfort. Granted, Hitler had the advantage that a tiny minority of Jews actually were responsible for many of the economic problems the population was suffering (bankers usually are), but that had nothing do do with most Jews. On the other hand, today we have a situation where a sizable portion of the population are closet racists who feel unfairly restricted from voicing their bigotry by popular opinion, coupled with the fact that numerous studies suggest that most people at least subconsciously carry notable biases against certain races, including even many members of those races. In either case you have a vast population struggling under oppressive economic woes, being given a convenient, officially endorsed, scapegoat to direct their anger at.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Perhaps, but it seems unlikely - the current system is about as good as it gets for giving people the illusion of choice without risking an actual democratic process. Both parties though I think badly misjudged just how frustrated the general populace is with the "invisible recovery" of the economy, and more specifically how they're suffering under the increasingly obvious wealth and power inequality that plagues our nation. As a result, they both allowed fringe candidates who spoke directly to that frustration a place at the debates - one who directs that frustration at the well-fortified perpetrators, and one at convenient scapegoats.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I wouldn't care if they went back and prosecuted Republicans OR Democrats on this behavior, *everyone* needs to be accountable. It sure would go far to show the public that government is accountable to the people and not above the law. ---------------- Hillary for Prison '16
No they aren't. They all seem to tend toward the same end - a small group of people controlling most of the wealth and power, but that is largely irrelevant to a discussion of relative merits, except insofar as how the various systems resist or encourage that trend. Conflating them simply makes meaningful conversation impossible.
Capitalism - encourages all wealth to flow into the hands of the few (the capitalists).
Communism - distributes wealth relatively equally.
Totalitarianism - concentrates all power into the hands of the few
Democracy - all power originates with the people, who collectively decide how to exert it.
Pretty much every large-scale government to date has been firmly on the totalitarian end of the spectrum, and all economies firmly on the the capitalist (that in the so-called "communist" countries the actual currency was mostly favors rather than cash doesn't fundamentally change anything except liquidity). If we hope to move towards more egalitarian societies we need to be able to actually discuss the advantages and disadvantages of various positions on the spectrum, and conflating economic and political (aka military/police) power only muddies that conversation because, while they're not independent, you need only look around the world to see that they come in an enormously wide range of combinations.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
And I would expect nothing less - he's apparently interested in creating a population of scapegoats, and you can't do that with a group that randomly spawns from among your supporters. Very few people are willing to demonize their children/siblings/etc - such people may be seen as confused, misguided, even sinful, but you generally know them too well to consider them evil.
If you're looking for scapegoats to deflect populous anger onto, it needs to be onto a population of "others" to whom few people among your base have any close ties to undermine your dehumanizing message. By openly endorsing such scapegoating, Trump has given his supporters someone to feel good about hating. And the wonderful thing about scapegoats is that they provide an outlet to deflect anger from pretty much everything - much like a ballroom brawl generally has more to do with people wanting to unleash repressed anger than anything actually said or done, and everybody goes home more able to tolerate their nagging spouse, overbearing boss, etc. for having "got it out of their system" fo a while
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
guess the republicans have mod points today and don't like it when people point out flaws with their paragon of virtue...
What the left really needs to re-think is the whole voting system, and pushing for eliminating the Electoral College and our current first-past-the-post voting system used in the national elections. The left is supposed to be the side that's all for making changes, so this is really their domain, but they've never pushed for this.
Heck, even the Republicans might be interested in fixing this problem now, since Trump has ruined their plans and split their party.
The left has and is. The Democratic Party, however, does not want to radically change the rules. Changing this would likely destroy both parties.
Unfortunately, changing the electoral system would have a lot of other consequences. Proportional representation under systems like ours shifts a lot of power to the executive branch.
I do happen to believe the US would be better off with PR, as the current system seems to disenfranchise and silence the sane people.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
You just have to ignore a bunch of facts to make your 'simple explantion' work. Talk about being blinded by politics.
They found most of the really damaging, deleted non-personal emails in the inboxes of the people she sent them to. Including the one where she directs her staff to commit a felony (remove classification markings and send).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
No. Leftism is fundamentally broken.
It's key flaw is excessive concentration of power.
No capitalism doesn't have the same flaw. Go ahead and claim it anyhow.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
So why are you in favor of an economic system that, by it's nature, puts so much power into the hands of politicians?
It sounds like you know better but can't see past your preconceptions.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You really think it's any better putting the power into the hands of the wealthy elite who inevitably have the politicians in their back pocket anyway?
Either way we're getting screwed, the only question is whether we're getting anything for our trouble.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The wealthy elite are money grubbers, politicians are power grubbers. You know the difference, you said it yourself.
At the crazy wealth edges money grubbers might turn into power grubbers, usually in old age. All the god damn politicians start and end with lust for power.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'