Slashdot Mirror
Clinton's First Email Server Was a Power Mac Tower (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader shares with us an excerpt from a report via Ars Technica: As she was being confirmed as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton contacted Colin Powell to ask him about his use of a Blackberry while in the same role. According to a Federal Bureau of Investigations memorandum published today (PDF), Powell warned Clinton that if it became public that she was using a Blackberry to "do business," her e-mails would be treated as "official" record and be subject to the law. "Be very careful," Powell said according to the FBI. "I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data." Perhaps Clinton's troubles began when she switched from a Blackberry-hosted e-mail account to an account on her Clintonemail.com domain -- a domain hosted on an Apple Power Mac "G4 or G5" tower running in the Clintons' Chappaqua, New York residence. The switch to the Power Mac as a server occurred the same month she exchanged messages with Powell. The Power Mac, originally purchased in 2007 by former President Clinton's aide Justin Cooper, had acted as the server for presidentclinton.com and wjcoffice.com. Cooper managed most of the technology support for Bill Clinton and took charge of setting up Hillary Clinton's new personal mail system on the Power Mac, which sat alongside a firewall and network switching hardware in the basement of the Clintons' home. But the Power Mac was having difficulty handling the additional load created by Blackberry usage from Secretary Clinton and her staff, so a decision was made quickly to upgrade the server hardware. Secretary Clinton's deputy chief of staff at the State Department, Huma Abedin, connected Cooper with Brian Pagliano, who had worked in IT for the secretary's 2008 presidential campaign. Cooper inquired with Pagliano about getting some of the campaign's computer hardware as a replacement for the Power Mac, and Pagliano was in the process of selling the equipment off.
I could see being confused about the difference between a G3 and G4 tower if you're colorblind, but a G5? I mean, it was either grey plastic or it looked like a cheese grater....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Because at the time she did this is was against State Department internal regulations, but not a criminal offense.
You only put people in jail for criminal offenses that have jail as punishment codified in the law, and even then jail is usually only one of many options available as punishment.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
"But the Power Mac was having difficulty handling the additional load created by Blackberry usage from Secretary Clinton and her staff..."
Seriously?
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
She's got a couple of hundred million in the bank and she's scrimping on the hardware? Incredible.
Bill was also using it to watch...videos.
Being an asshole isn't illegal.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
That's not the point, any conviction would prevent her accession to the US Throne. US AG Loretta Lynch (and upper in the hierarchy) can't allow that, who knows how much "corruption" stories she could remember while in jail...
She didn't tell any lies about the server. She didn't know details any more than a major corporation CEO knows what actual physical server their mail runs on.
She has enough plausible deniability and can answer with enough vagueness to not be chargeable.
"That is what the people who run the thing told me."
In short, she had no real first-hand knowledge of the server setup other than it was in her basement and handled her e-mail. The rest is typical VIP know nothing blather.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Are you saying it couldn't handle Bubba's load? What, did they name the server "Monica"?
monica.clintonmail.com
"I'm sorry about your lack of e-mail communication with Bill, Mrs. Clinton. It seems monica went down again. We're working on it."
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Difficulty handling the relentless brute force attempts more likely.
The G5's where power hugs and when falling behind X86 badly at the time.
In short, she had no real first-hand knowledge of the server setup other than it was in her basement and handled her e-mail. The rest is typical VIP know nothing blather.
The scary part is that she didn't seem to understand the differences between handling classified data and unclassified data. Almost anyone else in government who mishandled classified data similarly would be a guest of a federal correctional facility for many years.
Then why was the FBI investigating it?
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Finally, news nerds actually care about. Now we can have the argument over whether Hillary Clinton should be barred from office for life for using a Mac or instantly sainted for using a Mac.
Here, I'll start the ball rolling. Ban her from office! Unclean!
The opaqueness and secrecy of Apple was a natural fit for Clinton.
"Gross negligence" is defined as "such a gross want of care...as to justify the presumption of willfulness "
--Black's Law Dictionary 1185 (4th ed.1968), the definitive dictionary for the legal profession;
"Whoever, being entrusted with...any document...relating to the national defense...through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
--18 U.S.C. 793(f);
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information...110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification...To be clear , this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. "
--James Comey ( transcript source: FBI National Press Office, "Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System",July 5, 2016 )
The FBI just released its notes from the meeting with Hillary Clinton regarding the email server.
Hillary Clinton used her mobile phone on a balcony outside of secured areas to check her email:
Hillary claimed to the FBI she didn't receive training on handling classified information, yet her signature shows otherwise; how is this not a direct lie to the FBI?
The whole "I don't remember getting a briefing" is such colossal bullshit. Those briefings are required by law *annually*, not just once. And she would have gotten a separate briefing when she got her clearance, and any time it was upgraded.
She understands the difference. She thinks she is above all that. Rules, like taxes, are for little people.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Why isn't she in jail???
Because using a Mac, though unwise, is not illegal.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Because at the time she did this is was against State Department internal regulations, but not a criminal offense.
You only put people in jail for criminal offenses that have jail as punishment codified in the law, and even then jail is usually only one of many options available as punishment.
Unless you really don't like somebody.
Then even the smallest transgression is apparently worthy of jail time.
I stole this Sig
To determine if it was a criminal offense.
The FBI doesn't investigate "crimes", they investigate incidents to see if they maybe were crimes.
It isn't a crime until there is a criminal conviction. If you shoot someone, the police will investigate. If their investigation determines that the evidence points to justifiable homicide, then *no crime has been committed*.
Unfortunately, that example will make more sense if you happen to be black.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
In short, she had no real first-hand knowledge of the server setup other than it was in her basement and handled her e-mail. The rest is typical VIP know nothing blather.
The scary part is that she didn't seem to understand the differences between handling classified data and unclassified data.
The difference is that at a high level the state department is dealing with a crapload of data and it's not obvious whether it's classified or not.
Did that information come from source X? Well then it's classified. But from Y, well then it's not classified. Only parts A-C are classified, but D is fair game. Someone is calling Z classified but it's in a newspaper article, etc, etc.
Maybe you could make a system that makes it easy but that system apparently doesn't exist. And you could treat everything as classified but then nothing would ever get done.
Almost anyone else in government who mishandled classified data similarly would be a guest of a federal correctional facility for many years.
That would be a more convincing argument if someone ever had been in jail for something similar.
I stole this Sig
Am I missing something? There's no way that personal server could have been hosting her official email, right? I mean her h.clinton@whitehouse.gov or whatever. It would have been a different email address on her private server. So....who was sending classified emails to a non-official email address? Shouldn't they be in trouble for doing so?
A Commodore 64 would have been enough to handle the blackberry load so you and your up voters can fuck right off.
So, it is all a Black man's fault?.. Right...
Just looking at your comment I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic...
--
Somewhere in Chicago a community is missing its organizer.
But your sig makes me think it's unintentionally ironic.
I stole this Sig
...In real life the bad guys (gal) can use a Mac.
We all know that journalism is a thing of the past, and this is a perfect example. The official report says NOTHING about a Power Mac. In 2007, Apple wasn't even selling Power Macs. Furthermore, the report says that the server was experiencing connectivity issues with BlackBerries, not that it couldn't handle the load. I see no mention of load issues in the official report.
Almost anyone else in government who mishandled classified data similarly would be a guest of a federal correctional facility for many years.
That would be a more convincing argument if someone ever had been in jail for something similar.
The government isn't likely to let the public know of incidents of classified data mishandling or their resolutution. While in the military and while working as a contractor, I was informed that mishandling of classified information can lead to long terms of incarceration.
hmmm.... I have been running my own properly configured home based mail server for years and the load is negligible....
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
You say that as if the entire US government shouldn't be in jail.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
If you want to prevent Donald Trump, get Clinton to back down. You can nominate a ham sandwich and that will be enough to beat Trump.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
for a long term of incarceration it would have be very intentional mishandling. people mishandle classified data all the time, punishments range from having to spend an extra couple of hours in a training course to loss of clearance or in extreme cases loss of job, it is extremely rare for prosecution.
Cough, cough, you know where the fucking server was don't you, push comes to shove, drop it in the bath to kill it, not by fucking accident (what sane network admin puts a essential government server in a fucking bathroom). Only the criminally corrupt or the insane would claim the server was there for any other reason than to hide those communications from the rest of government, specifically the FBI because the NSA already new exactly what was going on and unlike the bullshit story being put out, have a full copy of every email in and out, either that or they were supremely and totally incompetent, which is not true, apart from of course the political appointees, who are not there for their skills just their willingness to criminally conspire with the other criminals who appointed them.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
While in the military and while working as a contractor, I was informed that mishandling of classified information can lead to long terms of incarceration.
I also served in the military, and afterwards, worked for a defense contractor. The S2 would occasionally conduct sweeps looking for classified info, in files, offices, desks, drawers, etc. They always found violations. The result was usually a verbal or written reprimand. I never saw anyone go to prison, or even lose their job.
Disclaimer: I am planning to vote for Gary Johnson.
Almost anyone else in government who mishandled classified data similarly would be a guest of a federal correctional facility for many years.
That would be a more convincing argument if someone ever had been in jail for something similar.
The government isn't likely to let the public know of incidents of classified data mishandling or their resolutution.
Why not? They're not going to tell the public the classified data, and they may even be vague about the specific exposure, but they're sure as hell going to say
"John Doe left a classified briefing on his dashboard and now he's doing 20 years of hard time!!"
While in the military and while working as a contractor, I was informed that mishandling of classified information can lead to long terms of incarceration.
Lots of things can happen, the question is whether they do happen.
The military has every reason to make you think the slightest screw up will land you in jail, that's the way to make you a lot more careful and avoid screw ups.
But it's a scare speech, no one is going to throw you in jail because you unintentionally mishandled a few classified docs.
I stole this Sig
What server software was running on the Mac? EIMS? Sendmail?
(I have run EIMS for almost 20 years - too bad the developer decided to go in a different direction.)
and there is constant compliance crap that *everyone* has to do. Loads of web quizzes and regular, mandatory seminars. Can't imagine DOD doesn't have the same sort of compliance stuff.
46 & 2
Intent is not necessary to violate 18 U.S. Code 793
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
tl;dr - she didn't have to know it was wrong, she simply had to be "extremely careless" (aka, "grossly negligent")
The real fear about Trump isn't that he would *be* president, but that he would abuse the *power* of the presidency.
The real fear is that now that we've allowed unchecked expansion of the powers of the presidency for decades, we're worried about it being abused.
The real answer is to use the system of checks and balances to limit the power of the presidency.
Having the obnoxious, hated, vilified Trump in office would in fact, be the greatest incentive for the judiciary and the legislative branches of the government to *do their jobs*. Heck, maybe even the press would finally hold the president accountable for corruption, law breaking, and bad faith!
If you want this country to get better, the best way is to have a president hated so much that we begin to finally curtail executive abuse of power.
Trump 2016
The entire US governments runs on "taking money ... while granting favors"
You're confusing campaign funding with putting millions of dollars directly in the Clinton family pockets, making them personally wealthy.
Health comments is Faux News BS
No, he's referring to the FBI's own notes from the interview. I know, you don't want that to have happened, but it did.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Perhaps she has Alzheimer's, that would be consistent with "I don't remember doing shit" and any judge would allow that as a valid defense.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
She thinks she is above all that.
Apparently she is. I mean, she did win the nomination, and what better rival on the other side could she ask for to divert our attention? These people are smooth operators. You'd almost think they planned it this way. To bring any of them down would put the entire crew at risk.
Nothing is going to come of this, 95% of congress will be reelected again, the universe remains in balance, so we may as well just relax. And besides, she used a Mac. That's a good thing, isn't it?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Because you have to indict her and then prove your charges in front of a jury?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
At this point, what does it matter?
I mean, the whole point of the Benghazi damage control lies was that she did it because the attack HAPPENED THE WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION and some short term lies were necessary to prevent a severe October Surprise event. Yet nobody, even the opposition, stresses this time sensitive narrative in their analysis of the matter. Nobody discusses that the lies threw the re-election of the president.
If he were running for Congress, you'd have a point, but this is the POTUS job we're talking about. It has little to do with political science and everything to do with serving as an executive in charge of a colossal staff, coupled with being the head of the military and schmoozing politicians. Fortunately, there are solid people at the top of the military, so the POTUS can get good advice and doesn't need to be a military strategist (most aren't). So that leaves running the executive branch and schmoozing with Congress.
An ideal candidate for office would be a smart, savvy businessperson who could find ways to set executive policies in ways that cut wasteful spending and make government more effective. So if Trump were actually a great businessperson instead of a mediocre one, he'd be a good candidate. Sadly, this is not the case.
Of course, Clinton has even less experience in that area, but more experience schmoozing politicians. Clinton is marginally better, but I'd still elect the aforementioned ham sandwich over either of them any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Uh huh. Why don't you try getting a classified job (at a far lower level than HRC), send work information over Facebook, and then try the "aww, shucks, who could have known" line at the DOJ when they're threatening you with twenty years in prison for mishandling classified data. Bonus points if you do it in your best Goofy impression.
Uh huh. Why don't you try getting a classified job (at a far lower level than HRC), send work information over Facebook, and then try the "aww, shucks, who could have known" line at the DOJ when they're threatening you with twenty years in prison for mishandling classified data. Bonus points if you do it in your best Goofy impression.
Again, lots of hypothetical examples without any actual incidents.
I stole this Sig
That's what I find to be the biggest farce - the Big Ebil Russians hacked the DNC email server in a matter of weeks to swing the election to Trump, yet they left Hillary's private email server alone for YEARS. Otherwise, it would mean Hillary was an incompetent fool, and we can't have that...
Your ignorance on the subject is not our problem.
Lots of presidents should have been in jail, why weren't they? Seriously, she's doing nothing worse or better than any of the presidents in my lifetime. If we're going to jail her then we should jail quite a lot of people. The reason people are focusing on her is partisanship otherwise they'd notice how badly behaved their own heros are.
If only she had an Ollie North to take the fall...
You mean enough concussions and blood clots to deny? Seriously, that was her excuse.
Your ignorance
A sailor going and photographing classified sections of a submarine over a period of months. Basically looking like he was engaged in active espionage.
So no, not a comparable incident.
subject
Petraeus deliberately shared highly classified materials with his mistress and biographer.
Not a remotely comparable incident.
not our problem.
Oooh, "10 people were actually punished for similar or lesser offenses than what Mrs. Clinton got away with yesterday".
This should be good for a laugh.
1. "pleaded guilty in 2005 to illegally sneaking classified documents from the National Archives by stuffing papers in his suit. He later destroyed some of them in his office and lied about it.”
Nope, he was deliberately removed classified documents and they proved he lied about it.
2. "Peter Van Buren, a foreign service officer for Hillary’s State Department, was fired and his security clearance revoked for quoting a Wikileaks document AFTER publishing a book critical of Clinton. In fact, the Washington Post reported that one of his firing infractions was “showing ‘bad judgement’ by criticizing Clinton and then-Rep. Michele Bachmann on his blog.”
Sounds more like someone being punished for writing a book critical of their employer.
3. Was a CIA director storing classified info at home. This is the most comparable though the CIA director was dealing with more sensitive information, should have been more aware than Hillary, and it sounds like he knew he had mishandled classified intel.
So a little worse than Hillary though roughly comparable. He also got pardoned by Bill Clinton before he even finished the plea deal. So that actually kinda sets a no jail-time incident.
4. “A Navy intelligence specialist admitted Thursday that he smuggled classified documents out of Fort Bragg in folders and his pants pockets, then sold them for $11,500 to a man he believed was a Chinese agent.”
Wow, #4 and they're already claiming a guy trying to sell classified intelligence to the Chinese was a lesser offence than Hillary?
I seriously checked all of the examples and even read the links on a few that looked promising.
This one was actually hilarious:
Lab Tech Steals Data from Nuclear Facility. Jessica Lynn Quintana, a former worker at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, pleaded guilty in federal court to “knowingly removing classified information from the national security research laboratory, after she took home sensitive documents and data from the lab last year.”
Talk about misrepresenting the facts. She was charged because she was running a meth lab!!
Still I learned something, don't believe a damn thing you read on "The Political Insider".
I stole this Sig
For fuck's sake, how obtuse do you have to be to deny all of the examples that have popped up over the years? Google it, you lazy prick.
I've heard the same argument for the Bigfoot.
There's so many stories! So much evidence!
Yet weirdly enough no one can ever find a single example that holds up to scrutiny.
I stole this Sig
If only the paid shills could get their facts straight.
The FBI has said just the opposite, repeatedly, they've simply hidden behind the "we didn't find any intent" smokescreen (intent is not required for several of the statutes she violated).
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
And despite the fact the FBI director used the phrase "extreme carelessness" wrt the handling of sensitive info, somehow the defenders of lawlessness still admit to the fact that she very clearly committed multiple crimes.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Over age 35, natural born US citizen, resident of the US for 14+ years? Yup, I think he's qualified... at least according to the constitution.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/02/...
Really? Read that, she is either lying or completely incompetent...
This again? Where were you when this happened before to others? It was a systemic problem that resulted in Rice, Powell and a pile of others being part of the same sort of fuckup only in their cases the classified emails left the building and ended up on commercial mail servers - whoops!
If you want to do something other than split hairs take a look at the Clinton foundation, Pfizers's dealings with them especially.
"there is constant compliance crap that *all employees* have to do" - FTFY
The rules for government employees and contractors are different from the rules for elected officials and appointees. If an employee sexually harasses someone, there are consequences, including being put into a new job, training, and the threat of firing. If an elected official or appointee sexually harasses someone, they can't be fired because they weren't actually hired. http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2012/dec/02/sexual-harassment-complaints-against/94163/ - if an elected official harasses someone, there's no real process beyond the victim getting a new job that isn't in proximity to the harasser, getting tired of the process not working and going public, and the harasser hopefully eventually resigning or losing an election.
Employees get their clearance when they're hired, and if they don't get the clearance, they're fired because they can't do the job. Elected and appointed officials get their clearance as part of the job, regardless of whether the investigating agencies would normally have given them a clearance or not. I have no idea whether they have the same rules as we do or not, but you can't generalize from an experience as an employee and assume the same rules apply to elected or appointed officials.
Not necessarily. Trial happen if the authorities believe they can convince a jury a crime has been committed, actual crime is not necessary.
The entire US governments runs on "taking money ... while granting favors"
You're confusing campaign funding with putting millions of dollars directly in the Clinton family pockets, making them personally wealthy.
No, it's a charity, the books get audited. They don't draw a salary, the money gets spent on causes they feel it should be spent on. Not a cent to campaign funds or their own bank accounts.
Their personal wealth is because - amazing as it may sound - organizations are willing to spend big bucks for the prestige of a former President giving a speech at their events.
Hillary Clinton contacted Colin Powell to ask him about his use of a Blackberry while in the same role. According to a Federal Bureau of Investigations memorandum published today (PDF), Powell warned Clinton that if it became public that she was using a Blackberry to "do business," her e-mails would be treated as "official" record and be subject to the law. "Be very careful," Powell said according to the FBI. "I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data."
So Hillary remembers every word of a brief conversation she had with Powell eight years ago, but she can't remember with the "C" in Classified stands for? Sure.
The scary part is that she didn't seem to understand the differences between handling classified data and unclassified data. Almost anyone else in government who mishandled classified data similarly would be a guest of a federal correctional facility for many years.
Separate from what she did, the classification system is broke in many ways. Stuff gets over classified, classified differently in different agencies, and get classified after the fact. I can see someone not realizing something should be classified. Aggregate unclassified data can become classified. Even the First Law of Thermodynamics is Confidential or at least was a while ago in parts of the Navy.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
tl;dr - she didn't have to know it was wrong, she simply had to be "extremely careless" (aka, "grossly negligent")
Extremely careless is not grossly negligent; you can argue an ongoing pattern of being extremely careless handling classified material is grossly negligent, but a few isolated cases would probably not reach that level, at least not in a legal sense.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Source: CNN
Then again, who are you going to believe, Powell or Clinton?
Ken
Except, of course, she isn't actually President, just a candidate for the office...
Ken
Here's a list of Obama's "Top Priorities" from 2010 - just two short years into his Presidency - a current list would be quite longer...
Just sayin'
Ken
Ken
It would be, but the FBI does not believe she lied to them. Comey said exactly that during his House testimony.
"gross negligence" != "extreme carelessness". As the FBI specifically said. One is a legal term, with specific criteria, and the other is colloquial.
Gross negligence requires some aspect of voluntary and conscious disregard, usually, by the way. Which means she has to have known some specific information was classified when she sent it, and known that she should not be doing so.
hmmm.... That's because she clearly is above the law.
You say that as if the entire US government shouldn't be in jail.
That would require changing laws. The people responsible for the current situation are also the beneficiaries and the ones that have the power to change things. There are too many stupid people in this country for enough of them to ever see a problem with this.
Even if I were to stipulate to your assertion, having a private, insecure server for *years* is certainly an ongoing pattern.
From Comey:
They had an ongoing set of improper conversations on this unclassified system for years.
Now, even if you want to argue that it *wasn't* grossly negligent, surely you can admit that this should have been adjudicated in a trial, instead of bypassed by political appointees.
See: http://scholarship.law.marquet...
And also: http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi...
There is conflicting case law in certain courts, but in general, the "Federal" rule as per SCOTUS does not require criminal intent:
By intentionally creating the server, she showed conscious and wanton disregard (extreme carelessness aka gross negligence). Arguing her intent had to be specific to an individual email, and therefore she could always defend with "I could not recall", misses the larger carelessness that occurred. She *intentionally* set up a system that facilitated the violation of 18 U.S.C 793 (f), and then that actual risk was actualized on numerous, ongoing occasions.
At the very least, we should all be able to agree that this should have been adjudicated at trial, and avoiding such a trial was a political move, not a legal one.
They don't draw a salary, the money gets spent on causes they feel it should be spent on.
They spend (at most) 10% of the foundations huge cash flow on actual charities/causes. The rest is all "administrative" fees and costs, including large salaries for cronies who "consult" with the foundation, and a huge parade of paid-for amenities for the the foundation's star attractions: Bill, Hillary, and their daughter. Do you really think that one dollar out of ten spent on "causes" is the sign of a proper charitable foundation? It means they are either corrupt, or incredibly incompetent - just like everything else they run.
Their personal wealth is because - amazing as it may sound - organizations are willing to spend big bucks for the prestige of a former President giving a speech at their events.
No, they were willing to spend big bucks because it gets them access to the Secretary of State, where they had other business pending. Do you REALLY think that some brokerage in NY is handing Hillary Clinton hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time for a closed-door, in-house-only appearance lasting under 30 minutes, with everyone involved signing non disclosure agreements so that the press can never learn what it was she said that was worth making her rich? Are you even listening to yourself?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Even if I were to stipulate to your assertion, having a private, insecure server for *years* is certainly an ongoing pattern.
However,the traffic, except for a handful, were unclassified and thus no violation occurred. Had she been sending and receiving classified traffic of years that would be a different story; but in this case there is no ongoing pattern of mishandling classified traffic.
From Comey:
They had an ongoing set of improper conversations on this unclassified system for years.
Now, even if you want to argue that it *wasn't* grossly negligent, surely you can admit that this should have been adjudicated in a trial, instead of bypassed by political appointees.
Not really, doing so simply devolves into one party looking to damage the others by using these things for political gain; ultimately things that really aren't a big deal become a chance for the Democrats or Republicans to get pay back or damage the other side. And quite frankly, after reading the report what she did is not that big of a deal and if the tables were turned the Republicans would be crying foul as loud as they are crying crime today.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Exact same arguments we get for AGW. So much evidence!
It's actually a cool way to look at it because it doesn't apply to AGW.
"Bigfoot proponent: I have a bigfoot footpint here!
Scientists: Nope, that's a bear print.
Bigfoot proponent: Well then I have a bigfoot hair!
Scientist: Nope, still a bear.
Bigfoot proponent: I have a video of a bigfoot!
Scientist: Nope, we can see it's a guy in a suit.
"
But see how it applies to AGW
"Skeptic: AGW doesn't exist because study A is wrong.
Scientists: Yeah, it does have shortcomings, study B is a much better look at that topic.
Skeptic: But study C is wrong!
Scientist: That was known for a while, that's why study D was done."
Basically skeptics find individual bad studies, about which they may or may not be correct, but they're always trying to cherry pick the one bad study or line of evidence, instead of attacking the best evidence. The existence of an individual bad study means nothing, it would be like disproving the existence of women by bringing in a bunch of drag queens.
The way to disprove AGW is to take the best studies and theories that everyone relies on an disprove those, and then it would fall apart like the Bigfoot.
I stole this Sig
this is was against State Department internal regulations, but not a criminal offense.
I disagree. They're investigating a possible crime.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
So, how much is Soros paying you to shill for Hillary?
Not a damn dime.
I just get really pissed off when everyone buys into a bullshit narrative and I refuse to let the bullshit artists dominate the conversation.
Seriously, the paranoia over paid shills to comment on message boards is kinda stupid anyway. The last thing Soros or any political actor would want is some idiot they were paying $10/hr to post on a /. message board to say something outrageous and have it traced back to them.
And even if they did pay a few there's already hundreds of thousands of people on both sides willing to engage in the debate. It would be like trying to cause a flood by dumping a pot of water in a the river, flood or no flood you didn't do squat.
Even Russia with it's actual state sponsored legion of internet posters... I'm pretty skeptical I've ever directly engaged with one of them. There are so many much more mundane explanations for the stupid things people write.
I stole this Sig
I know you paid shills like to try to sway people to your side with a good bit of cherry picking, you really should pick your targets better.
Interesting how you removed half a clause from your copy & paste from above, specifically:
Was Clinton's email server a proper place of custody? If not, then she violated that statute through gross negligence at minimum.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
That's simply not true.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
104 is not a handful.
I agree that if the tables were turned, both sides would take the opposite position.
I don't agree that isn't a big deal. Government corruption is particularly poisonous and insidious, and while our two party system may make for a great crop of hypocrites, that doesn't make their bad behavior excusable.
In fact, the reason why I'm voting for Trump is because he's the only candidate hated enough by the media and the establishment to be held accountable for his actions, and properly checked and balanced. Clinton's narrow escape here through political pressure is just one in a long litany of corrupt practices the mainstream media has given her a pass on.
I'm guessing being 16 may prevent such a person from entering into contracts on behalf of the company... so no.
Except most people have different definitions of what it means to be qualified.
To some, Clinton''s marrying who she did, her time in office because of said marriage, as well as her gender makes her qualified, to others, the fact Trump has no political experience makes him qualified.
To each their own, but to fail to recognize both sides is just lazy thinking.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
The act of creating the server was disconnected from any act of sending mail, in time, and in mind. She didn't even create the server, after all. That happened in like, 2007.
They spend (at most) 10% of the foundations huge cash flow on actual charities/causes. The rest is all "administrative" fees and costs, including large salaries for cronies who "consult" with the foundation, and a huge parade of paid-for amenities for the the foundation's star attractions: Bill, Hillary, and their daughter. Do you really think that one dollar out of ten spent on "causes" is the sign of a proper charitable foundation? It means they are either corrupt, or incredibly incompetent - just like everything else they run.
No, you've been watching too much Fox News and/or Breitbart. They give grants of about 10% to other charities, for those charities to use or distribute. Most of the rest they spend on their own charity initiatives - ranging from Women's Health to training farmers in Africa to a wide variety or good causes. The actual administrative expenses are around 11%, which is quite good for charity organizations.
No, they were willing to spend big bucks because it gets them access to the Secretary of State, where they had other business pending. Do you REALLY think that some brokerage in NY is handing Hillary Clinton hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time for a closed-door, in-house-only appearance lasting under 30 minutes, with everyone involved signing non disclosure agreements so that the press can never learn what it was she said that was worth making her rich? Are you even listening to yourself?
So, how do you explain the wealth that they accumulated before Hillary was SoS? They made over $90 million from 2000 to 2006 in book and speech income, did that income source magically become "dirty" when she joined the Obama administration?
I find your example lacking in specifics - which firm? What date? Was she in office at the time? Vague accusations indicate an unreliable source. And if the press could never learn about it, how do you know so "much" (actually very little) about it?
The act of avoiding a state approved blackberry, and using the previously created server, was intentional, wanton, and grossly negligent.
Whether or not you're talking about the actual, physical creation of the server, or the "creation" of it as a method for doing possibly classified work during her tenure at the state department, the fact remains the same - it was not "by accident", it was willful negligence.
Because Alexander Hamilton never intended politicians to be prosecuted for their crimes. That's why he set up a different system of justice for politicians than for the rest of us.
Yeah, that's why I've been pointing out that guns are pretty ineffective combat weapons and that people who believe in their armament rights (I've stopped referring to the amendments when talking about rights that the amendments are merely a sham at protecting) should insist on tanks and planes. I also point out the Shays and Whiskey Rebellions and refer to them as the good guys. I also make people aware of Thomas Hobbes and Alexander Hamilton and refer to them as villains and darlings of the university and politics circles.
I don't really disagree with your overall conclusions, but Benghazi happened on September 11th. US federal elections are the first Tuesday after November 1st - almost two months later.
I think Hillary was treated fairly by the FBI director. The problem is we should all be treated like this, with due process. Instead the way it works for us normal people is the states attorney charges us will a million trumped up things as a way to get leverage over us to plea bargain.
Define "insecure server". It was not clearly worse nor clearly better than the regular office server she should have been using.
Table-ized A.I.
Well, we can start off with the network definition. Any server outside the firewall is by it's very nature, more insecure than the ones protected by a DMZ.
Moving up the network layers, let's talk about the protocol. Any server using insecure protocols to transmit data, is more insecure than ones protected by basic SSL encryption. The FBI document also details that gap (which, eventually, was remediated, but not before work related emails were transported across it).
Finally, we can talk about process and policy. Any server working outside the standard process and policy protocols of an institution, which would include standardized backup, security maintenance, and security audits, is by definition more insecure.
Anyone who has worked in the private sector for a financial or health care institution will recognize immediately that using an insecure, secret server, to conduct work related business is grossly negligent. The fact that this was the State department, our scrutiny should be even more heightened.
It became a criminal offense when she started trading classified documents via her private email systems. Of course just having the server for private use is perfectly legal.
When one gains access to a head-of-states 'private' communications, one does not waste that opportunity for lulz on 4chan. At least until after they leave office, which is exactly what happened.
Yes, but then the VP candidate would become president, and we'd almost certainly be no worse off, regardless of which ham sandwich won.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
https://politics.slashdot.org/...
How about failing a security audit dramatically?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
To be fair, Rice didn't even use e-mail, and Powell is the reason State has modern email infrastructure; he made it a priority to get State into the information age.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Actually, no, the server broke the federal records retention laws as well. Mostly because she did not turn over the records, and in fact tried to wipe a bunch of records that the FBI was able to retrieve.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Do you have evidence the regular office email server was protected by a DMZ, used a higher level of encryption, and had good backups?
If I remember correctly, it died and the backups were faulty.
Table-ized A.I.
Please, feel free to get past their DMZ :)
I mean during her term. What they do now is irrelevant to the discussion.
Table-ized A.I.
Are you really asserting that the State Department email system was open to the internet, running RDP, during Clinton's tenure?
You've got a lot of speculation there, maybe more specific details would help :)
Something was "open":
http://www.reuters.com/article...
Table-ized A.I.
Let's review again the levels of security we're talking about here.
# protected by state department IT
- internal classified network
- internal unclassified network
# protected by clinton foundation cronies
- external secret homebrew on an insecure network running RDP in the open with no encrypted transport for at least several months
The fact that some ninja breaks into the internal unclassified network of the state department (quite possibly by leveraging exploits coming from the secret homebrew server), doesn't mean that the secret homebrew server was "more secure".
It's like you're asserting that running around in freeway traffic is safer than taking a bath because someone survived running around in freeway traffic, and someone else drowned in their bathtub. Regardless of the outcome of chance, the probabilities were distinctly different, and it is based on the reasonable consideration of probability that we define gross negligence.
I'm talking about the "internal unclassified network". And I don't buy your freeway analogy. There are a lot of factors that affect hack risk.
For example, although the State Dept. may have had thicker doors, it probably also had a higher quantity of doors, and windows. H's home server did only one narrow job.
SD is also a more public target, meaning more hackers will likely try it. Obscurity does reduce risk.
And you didn't address my "as it was then" request, but merely changed the subject.
And it wasn't "secret homebrew" as I explained elsewhere. You misinterpret English words to fit the shape of your political bias. Your brain is lying to you.
Table-ized A.I.
If only I could believe that it was truly hardened, following at least PCI policies :)
I'm surprised you keep trying to defend her grossly negligent actions by pretending that it was equivalent in safety or security to the option she was obligated to abide by, and obligated others to abide by.
How about that - if Clinton's secret homebrew server was so much better than the SD, why didn't she make it official policy for others to do the same?
Interesting new source material: https://www.wired.com/2016/09/...
It seems like Powell should be charged with conspiring to destroy federal records, and Clinton should be charged with the same for taking his advice. The fact that Secretaries of State would so blithely talk about avoiding federal records laws is shameful, don't you think?
Presented FYI: https://sharylattkisson.com/th...
I would be interested to know if there is anything in that timeline you believe isn't accurate.
Basic horseshit. Even the DOJ that's prosecuting him agrees he had no intent to distribute the images from his cell phone. You know, the same DOJ that was threatening Aaron Schwartz with 35 years in prison for unauthorized network access.
Damn straight it's not a comparable incident - Hillary had thousands and thousands of emails with classified information on them, in an unauthorized, insecure private email server. You're comparing an anthill (sailor) to Mt. McKinley parked on top Mt. Everest (HRC). And also destroyed evidence without authorization, something that Sandy Berger went to prison for. This goes beyond cognitive dissonance to willful dumbfuckery.
You have to either have a powerful level of narcotics in your system, or a powerful level of stupid, to say a sailor should face prosecution for deciding to take pictures on his personal phone, which is not accessible to the entire internet, and hand waive away a private email server, with exponentially more secretive information yet public-facing, with a straight face. Would it make any difference if that sailor said "but but but I also used that phone to dictate mission reports!" - of course not. So how the hell can anyone rationalize another state worker putting far more amounts of far more secretive information at far greater risk?
It's all comparable, because the prosecution is all comparable: mishandling classified information. Just ask Sandy Berger, and any whisteblower persecuted by the Obama administration. Intent does not matter, only the action matters.
Berger wasn't authorized to carry those materials out of the National Archives nor destroy them - and Hillary wasn't authorized to use a private email server for far far FAR more information than Berger was ever accused of removing, nor destroying the evidence (deleting emails).
Willful.
Dumb.
Fuck.
Er.
Eee.
Was she or was she not charged with mishandling classified information? No amount of hand waiving is going to change the fact that Hillary's dumb ass would be in prison if she were anyone other than Hillary.
Hillary had thousands and thousands of emails with classified information on them
You mean 113? Out of tens of thousands?
an unauthorized, insecure private email server.
As opposed to an unauthorized, insecure state department email server?
The private server is a complete red herring, the confidential emails weren't supposed to go over the standard state dept email either. And she was definitely not the only one to have sent or received confidential email on an unauthorized account.
And also destroyed evidence without authorization, something that Sandy Berger went to prison for.
He stuffed the docs into his pants, it's pretty obvious he knew he was violating the law.
Intent does not matter, only the action matters.
Yeah, why let one of the basic factors in criminal law influence your analysis?
You miss the point. Once they have one legitimate charge then they hit you with every other possible charge they can.
I stole this Sig
Actually, what she did was illegal. See here for some details.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
I really doubt your story, sorry. I never got a clearance, but even I got briefed on what I was supposed to do if I ever found Classified material.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.