LOL, and you are defending the gal who's getting written a speeding ticket for doing 20 over by saying "Look at all those other folks doing 5 over! What about them?" I'm not dismissing them, I'm just pointing out that it's not a defense of what Clinton did.
Clinton either lied or simply didn't care enough to know the truth before she made specific public assertions of her innocence to the press. She then had to change her story, not once, not twice, but four times.... It cost her the Whitehouse and almost got her charged with multiple felonies... Face it, She acted stupidly.
She lied.... Well, perhaps she didn't care enough to find out the actual truth and didn't remember so she invented a story to spin out of the problem.... But her story changed over the 18 months it was an active news story and she had to modify her story on multiple occasions as new facts came to light. I've outlined this before.. She went from "It wasn't used for work.." To "It was only for convince and didn't have classified information on it." to "It didn't have anything MARKED classified on it" to where we are today.
Her story had to change as the available facts changed. Instead of coming out and finding out what the truth was and admitting to it, she spun and sputtered, changing her story with every new wave of facts came to light. That's all on Hillary. She obviously either didn't care, at all, about this, or had something to hide. Either way it looked bad for her..
Read all you want, but the fact remains that this issue with Clinton cost her the presidency... Maybe she made a mistake or was actually criminally negligent, but the facts are that she tried to deflect this issue by down playing it and was forced to admit to more and more serious infractions as the facts came to light. Had she come clean when this story first came to light, she'd likely be president right now.
And I don't agree with your characterization of her e-mails and their contents as not being serious. It was deadly serious in that it likely resulted in the exposure of highly classified information to the world and the FBI report indicates as much. There may not have been a lot of highly sensitive stuff there, but there was SOME, enough to do grave damage to the USA's interests. She tried to minimize it, down play it, and claim that it wasn't a big deal. This opened her up to Trump's "Can you Trust her?" line of attack, which ultimately was very likely to have swayed enough voters to make him president.
If I was you, I'd cut her loose and stop defending her. She's not a viable candidate for dog catcher anymore and will spend the rest of her days writing and selling books or making speeches like her husband. She's almost literally a dead horse...
Yea, I don't know anything at all about handling classified information... Of course I could claim to have various clearances for 50 years but this is the internet, I could claim anything about myself and you'd not know the differance.
This "other folks did it" is a dodge. No they didn't, not with classified information, not to this extent and certainly they didn't lie about having done it. In both cases they provided access so the archives could be made in accordance with the law. Clinton? Not so much...
Oh yea.. Here comes the Powel did it and Clinton just forwarded stuff dodges... I can tell, there is no point in trying to move you forward here or correct your facts... She made deplorable mistakes though lack of caring and acted like the rules didn't apply to her, what other folks did is immaterial to her problem.
Give it up, she lost the election likely because of all this hoopla if truth be told. Hoopla she brought on herself, but still won't admit... But that's a whole other debate...
She just didn't care. It's not that hard to keep things separated, it's a pain in the butt, but doable if you have half a care about what you are doing.
Hillary didn't care. She either didn't care enough to educate herself in the proper protection of our nation's most sensitive information, or she didn't care enough to protect it. Take your pick... Either way, it reflects badly on her.
My guess is she knew what this stuff was. It's not like she's a novice with this stuff. She's held clearances off and on for years. She simply didn't care... And let's not forget the *real* issue here.... Using a personal E-mail server for official government business? Really? That's illegal and she KNEW that too. After all, she sent a memo reprimanding one of her ambassadors on this very subject. It was the FOIA request from some right wing group that caught this and sued her to find these E-mail's...
I believe you looked at DOCUMENT 2 page 1.. Look at document 1 page 2 where it discusses the 2,000+ classified E-mail they found. This stuff was highly classified, compartmented stuff. Stuff you don't find in the public domain, ever....
You are either daft or just flat don't know what you are talking about. What do you suppose those things in () in front of each paragraph actually are and what do they mean? Those are portion marked. Here is some material you need to read: https://www.archives.gov/files...
FIRST: The FBI isn't going to just post the E-mail's in question unless they got them declassified. That would be mishandling classified and SOME folks in the government actually try to follow the rules.
SECOND: The portion marking on the paragraphs DOES means something to those trained in what they mean and Hillary was trained as a condition of getting her clearance.
Finally... Did you actually READ page 2 of the report you provided the link to? The first paragraph makes it pretty clear that Hillary had some pretty sensitive stuff on her various E-mail servers and devices... Stuff your average person would have been strung up for mishandling..
Ah, but you forget that she sent/received content with portion marks. Public Sources do not generally portion mark their material. That stuff came from classified documents, was marked as classified, and should have been recognized by Hillary (and the rest of those reading the E-mails) as classified.
You are stopping at story #3 out of #4...
Story 1: I didn't use my private E-mail server for work E-mails, it was just wedding planning and Yoga schedules.
Story 2: I used it for work, but only for non classified stuff and only because I didn't want to have multiple devices just to receive E-mail.
Story 3: I used it for work, but didn't send anything that was marked as classified. It was all public information that was retroactively declared classified.
Story 4: I did send and receive Classified, some of it was obviously portion marked, but I didn't see that at the time....
Hillary has misstated the truth multiple times here and had to revise her story as more facts came to light.... Comey clearly said as much.
Because of Hillary Clinton.... She E-mailed classified stuff around the planet on her personal E-mail server without so much as ROT 13 encryption... BUT.... James Comey decided that it wasn't a crime and announced to the world that he didn't think she could be charged because she had no intent to be careless.
If Hills can, why not this contractor? After all, it wasn't their INTENT to share it with the Russians and they presumably didn't E-mail it to anybody.
(Sarc off)
Show me where Hillary actually mailed known classified material using her server. Oh right, you can't. (snip)
I understand you hate Hillary, I don't like her either, but at least stick to facts.
I believe your facts are a bit behind the truth. Comey's guys found E-mail MARKED classified which Hills sent/received. You need to read that again... The content carried portion marks that indicated it was classified. What's worse, it was literally cut and pasted from a classified document into an unclassified E-mail.... (Perhaps not by Hillary, but by SOMEBODY, and that means classified was improperly put on an unclassified system..)
Hillary claims that she didn't see and understand what these marks where, but the FACT here is that she DID send classified information which she SHOULD have recognized as such because it was portion marked. She was trained on this stuff as a pre-condition of receiving her clearance, if she was paying attention, she would have known. I don't believe she's that stupid, she knew what it was, I believe she just didn't care.
is the fact the employee brought home classified documents which somehow found their way onto their home ( read that: Unlikely certified to handle classified information ) computer.
Normally, I would consider this unlikely, but apparently keeping classified info on private systems / servers is all the rage these days:|
I understand the confusion.. Apparently if you don't "intend" to mishandle classified, you can do what you want, including sending it via E-mail to everybody and their brother in unencrypted form. Just be sure to "wipe" that server "with a cloth" should you get questioned on this...
I can almost guarantee that no contractor is "allowed to take classified documents home" much less have them stored on a computer that was connected to the internet...
Apparently though, Being secretary of state gets you around those rules, so I can understand being confused.
The problem here isn't Kaspersky and Russian hackers, they're just being opportunistic.
The REAL problem here is a dumb @$$ contractor who stole classified information and brought it home.
Why isn't the contractor, both company and employee, being punished for breach of secure information? Any other countries' spooks would want this info, including our allies.
Ahh that's right, let's just take this as an opportunity to bash Russia some more while our real enemy China is cleaning out both our industrial trade and military secrets!/sarcasm
Because of Hillary Clinton.... She E-mailed classified stuff around the planet on her personal E-mail server without so much as ROT 13 encryption... BUT.... James Comey decided that it wasn't a crime and announced to the world that he didn't think she could be charged because she had no intent to be careless.
If Hills can, why not this contractor? After all, it wasn't their INTENT to share it with the Russians and they presumably didn't E-mail it to anybody.
I always wondered about that... He'd been in office for ~9 months? Really? The Peace Prize? For what? Promising to end a couple of wars (only one which he actually managed)?
I wonder if they regret that choice? I'm guessing they don't.
Sure, but the idea here is to make a system that requires two or more people to concur that the activity got done. This is commonly done for critical activities.
I fully get that no system is fool proof and that a sufficiently motivated group could bypass it. However, my point here is that there are effective ways to make the gaming of a system harder than compliance and/or design a system that makes it nearly impossible to get away with gaming the system because eventually you will be detected. Such systems need not be complex or time consuming to implement.
Remember, this is a risk management technique. One needs to gauge the risks and costs of any system like any other risk management effort.
Although, it also makes it nearly impossible for any foreign power to consider trying to invade and take the USA by force. Us Americans may not have invented gorilla urban warfare, but we are supremely well equipped as citizens to wage a conflict that would cost an invading power dearly to win. (Red Dawn scenario comes to mind here, not to mention the Revolutionary war).
Where I figure the "preper" mindset is a bit crazy, one has to admit that it's generally harmless and may actually be helpful should the worst happen, the electric grid goes down, local government fails or some natural disaster wipes out existing infrastructure. I may not be armed to the teeth and have a plot of land with a bunker, but I AM prepared to defend and feed myself and family for a couple of weeks should the need arise.
Only the same kind of person refuses to see that refugees and terrorists *sometimes* mixed together. Unless you can tell for sure who's who, it's pretty idiotic to just let folks in. Which is, of course, the same justification for "the Wall".... But don't let your political views limit your thinking....
It may be mentally wrong... but some of those guys take it pretty seriously.
I know a couple of guys who are better armed than an army platoon. However their focus is to survive the anarchy should the government fail and defend themselves should the government fail to do so.
As I recall... Part of the justification of the revolution was that the British DID do some of these things, albeit somewhat blown out of context by the press of the day (Boston Massacre anyone). The struggle was for the restoration of the individual's rights, which the King had wantonly disregarded. All one need do is read the Declaration of Independence for the justification and details of why the colonists where unhappy enough to start shooting.
This is NOTHING like today's so called "terrorists" who target the innocent bystander with no provocation or identifiable ideological reason in their target selection other than how to scare as many innocent people as they can to get their cause on the evening news.
The Russians don't scare me, though they have my respect.... They are reasonable players in the world so it's not that hard to figure out what they are going to do and how they are going to react to things. They are not going to do something really stupid and get into a shooting type conflict with the USA. They understand it would be a really bad thing for all involved. I think of them like a guard dog behind a fence. They may bark, but as long as I stay on this side of the fence, they won't hurt me.
Kim and the DPRK scare me. I have zero respect for them, but they scare me in so far as they can inflict significant damage. Everybody knows they'd not prevail should the cease fire agreement goes away and the Korean War goes into a shooting affair again. However, reducing DPRK's military to rubble would take a couple of days at least and in the mean time they'd be able to do some serious damage to South Korea. Think of them like a angry dog with no leash, collar or fence barking at you. You had better be ready to deal with them, draw the firearm and take the safety off.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't happen to live next to Amazon's new distribution center and work in retail? Too bad for you.
Eventually we are going to really miss that corner store and rue the day we decided that next day deliver works just fine.
LOL, and you are defending the gal who's getting written a speeding ticket for doing 20 over by saying "Look at all those other folks doing 5 over! What about them?" I'm not dismissing them, I'm just pointing out that it's not a defense of what Clinton did.
Clinton either lied or simply didn't care enough to know the truth before she made specific public assertions of her innocence to the press. She then had to change her story, not once, not twice, but four times.... It cost her the Whitehouse and almost got her charged with multiple felonies... Face it, She acted stupidly.
She lied.... Well, perhaps she didn't care enough to find out the actual truth and didn't remember so she invented a story to spin out of the problem.... But her story changed over the 18 months it was an active news story and she had to modify her story on multiple occasions as new facts came to light. I've outlined this before.. She went from "It wasn't used for work.." To "It was only for convince and didn't have classified information on it." to "It didn't have anything MARKED classified on it" to where we are today.
Her story had to change as the available facts changed. Instead of coming out and finding out what the truth was and admitting to it, she spun and sputtered, changing her story with every new wave of facts came to light. That's all on Hillary. She obviously either didn't care, at all, about this, or had something to hide. Either way it looked bad for her..
Read all you want, but the fact remains that this issue with Clinton cost her the presidency... Maybe she made a mistake or was actually criminally negligent, but the facts are that she tried to deflect this issue by down playing it and was forced to admit to more and more serious infractions as the facts came to light. Had she come clean when this story first came to light, she'd likely be president right now.
And I don't agree with your characterization of her e-mails and their contents as not being serious. It was deadly serious in that it likely resulted in the exposure of highly classified information to the world and the FBI report indicates as much. There may not have been a lot of highly sensitive stuff there, but there was SOME, enough to do grave damage to the USA's interests. She tried to minimize it, down play it, and claim that it wasn't a big deal. This opened her up to Trump's "Can you Trust her?" line of attack, which ultimately was very likely to have swayed enough voters to make him president.
If I was you, I'd cut her loose and stop defending her. She's not a viable candidate for dog catcher anymore and will spend the rest of her days writing and selling books or making speeches like her husband. She's almost literally a dead horse...
Yea, I don't know anything at all about handling classified information... Of course I could claim to have various clearances for 50 years but this is the internet, I could claim anything about myself and you'd not know the differance.
This "other folks did it" is a dodge. No they didn't, not with classified information, not to this extent and certainly they didn't lie about having done it. In both cases they provided access so the archives could be made in accordance with the law. Clinton? Not so much...
Oh yea.. Here comes the Powel did it and Clinton just forwarded stuff dodges... I can tell, there is no point in trying to move you forward here or correct your facts... She made deplorable mistakes though lack of caring and acted like the rules didn't apply to her, what other folks did is immaterial to her problem.
Give it up, she lost the election likely because of all this hoopla if truth be told. Hoopla she brought on herself, but still won't admit... But that's a whole other debate...
She just didn't care. It's not that hard to keep things separated, it's a pain in the butt, but doable if you have half a care about what you are doing.
Hillary didn't care. She either didn't care enough to educate herself in the proper protection of our nation's most sensitive information, or she didn't care enough to protect it. Take your pick... Either way, it reflects badly on her.
My guess is she knew what this stuff was. It's not like she's a novice with this stuff. She's held clearances off and on for years. She simply didn't care... And let's not forget the *real* issue here.... Using a personal E-mail server for official government business? Really? That's illegal and she KNEW that too. After all, she sent a memo reprimanding one of her ambassadors on this very subject. It was the FOIA request from some right wing group that caught this and sued her to find these E-mail's...
I believe you looked at DOCUMENT 2 page 1.. Look at document 1 page 2 where it discusses the 2,000+ classified E-mail they found. This stuff was highly classified, compartmented stuff. Stuff you don't find in the public domain, ever....
Seriously? The markings mean nothing?
You are either daft or just flat don't know what you are talking about. What do you suppose those things in () in front of each paragraph actually are and what do they mean? Those are portion marked. Here is some material you need to read: https://www.archives.gov/files...
FIRST: The FBI isn't going to just post the E-mail's in question unless they got them declassified. That would be mishandling classified and SOME folks in the government actually try to follow the rules.
SECOND: The portion marking on the paragraphs DOES means something to those trained in what they mean and Hillary was trained as a condition of getting her clearance.
Finally... Did you actually READ page 2 of the report you provided the link to? The first paragraph makes it pretty clear that Hillary had some pretty sensitive stuff on her various E-mail servers and devices... Stuff your average person would have been strung up for mishandling..
Ah, but you forget that she sent/received content with portion marks. Public Sources do not generally portion mark their material. That stuff came from classified documents, was marked as classified, and should have been recognized by Hillary (and the rest of those reading the E-mails) as classified.
You are stopping at story #3 out of #4...
Story 1: I didn't use my private E-mail server for work E-mails, it was just wedding planning and Yoga schedules.
Story 2: I used it for work, but only for non classified stuff and only because I didn't want to have multiple devices just to receive E-mail.
Story 3: I used it for work, but didn't send anything that was marked as classified. It was all public information that was retroactively declared classified.
Story 4: I did send and receive Classified, some of it was obviously portion marked, but I didn't see that at the time....
Hillary has misstated the truth multiple times here and had to revise her story as more facts came to light.... Comey clearly said as much.
Because of Hillary Clinton.... She E-mailed classified stuff around the planet on her personal E-mail server without so much as ROT 13 encryption... BUT.... James Comey decided that it wasn't a crime and announced to the world that he didn't think she could be charged because she had no intent to be careless.
If Hills can, why not this contractor? After all, it wasn't their INTENT to share it with the Russians and they presumably didn't E-mail it to anybody.
(Sarc off)
Show me where Hillary actually mailed known classified material using her server. Oh right, you can't. (snip)
I understand you hate Hillary, I don't like her either, but at least stick to facts.
I believe your facts are a bit behind the truth. Comey's guys found E-mail MARKED classified which Hills sent/received. You need to read that again... The content carried portion marks that indicated it was classified. What's worse, it was literally cut and pasted from a classified document into an unclassified E-mail.... (Perhaps not by Hillary, but by SOMEBODY, and that means classified was improperly put on an unclassified system..)
Hillary claims that she didn't see and understand what these marks where, but the FACT here is that she DID send classified information which she SHOULD have recognized as such because it was portion marked. She was trained on this stuff as a pre-condition of receiving her clearance, if she was paying attention, she would have known. I don't believe she's that stupid, she knew what it was, I believe she just didn't care.
is the fact the employee brought home classified documents which somehow found their way onto their home ( read that: Unlikely certified to handle classified information ) computer.
Normally, I would consider this unlikely, but apparently keeping classified info on private systems / servers is all the rage these days :|
I understand the confusion.. Apparently if you don't "intend" to mishandle classified, you can do what you want, including sending it via E-mail to everybody and their brother in unencrypted form. Just be sure to "wipe" that server "with a cloth" should you get questioned on this...
James Comey said so!
It's a great story. It never gets old.
True dat.. Been going on for almost 80 years now...
I can almost guarantee that no contractor is "allowed to take classified documents home" much less have them stored on a computer that was connected to the internet...
Apparently though, Being secretary of state gets you around those rules, so I can understand being confused.
The problem here isn't Kaspersky and Russian hackers, they're just being opportunistic.
The REAL problem here is a dumb @$$ contractor who stole classified information and brought it home.
Why isn't the contractor, both company and employee, being punished for breach of secure information? Any other countries' spooks would want this info, including our allies.
Ahh that's right, let's just take this as an opportunity to bash Russia some more while our real enemy China is cleaning out both our industrial trade and military secrets! /sarcasm
Because of Hillary Clinton.... She E-mailed classified stuff around the planet on her personal E-mail server without so much as ROT 13 encryption... BUT.... James Comey decided that it wasn't a crime and announced to the world that he didn't think she could be charged because she had no intent to be careless.
If Hills can, why not this contractor? After all, it wasn't their INTENT to share it with the Russians and they presumably didn't E-mail it to anybody.
(Sarc off)
I always wondered about that... He'd been in office for ~9 months? Really? The Peace Prize? For what? Promising to end a couple of wars (only one which he actually managed)?
I wonder if they regret that choice? I'm guessing they don't.
Sure, but the idea here is to make a system that requires two or more people to concur that the activity got done. This is commonly done for critical activities.
I fully get that no system is fool proof and that a sufficiently motivated group could bypass it. However, my point here is that there are effective ways to make the gaming of a system harder than compliance and/or design a system that makes it nearly impossible to get away with gaming the system because eventually you will be detected. Such systems need not be complex or time consuming to implement.
Remember, this is a risk management technique. One needs to gauge the risks and costs of any system like any other risk management effort.
Although, it also makes it nearly impossible for any foreign power to consider trying to invade and take the USA by force. Us Americans may not have invented gorilla urban warfare, but we are supremely well equipped as citizens to wage a conflict that would cost an invading power dearly to win. (Red Dawn scenario comes to mind here, not to mention the Revolutionary war).
Where I figure the "preper" mindset is a bit crazy, one has to admit that it's generally harmless and may actually be helpful should the worst happen, the electric grid goes down, local government fails or some natural disaster wipes out existing infrastructure. I may not be armed to the teeth and have a plot of land with a bunker, but I AM prepared to defend and feed myself and family for a couple of weeks should the need arise.
Only the same kind of person refuses to see that refugees and terrorists *sometimes* mixed together. Unless you can tell for sure who's who, it's pretty idiotic to just let folks in. Which is, of course, the same justification for "the Wall".... But don't let your political views limit your thinking....
It may be mentally wrong... but some of those guys take it pretty seriously.
I know a couple of guys who are better armed than an army platoon. However their focus is to survive the anarchy should the government fail and defend themselves should the government fail to do so.
Yea, but I'm going to survive.
I'm To old to fight and to tired to get up, so if you mess with me, expect me to just use the side arm...
As I recall... Part of the justification of the revolution was that the British DID do some of these things, albeit somewhat blown out of context by the press of the day (Boston Massacre anyone). The struggle was for the restoration of the individual's rights, which the King had wantonly disregarded. All one need do is read the Declaration of Independence for the justification and details of why the colonists where unhappy enough to start shooting.
This is NOTHING like today's so called "terrorists" who target the innocent bystander with no provocation or identifiable ideological reason in their target selection other than how to scare as many innocent people as they can to get their cause on the evening news.
Where I live, they can mess things up from the home office.... No need to climb a poll or cut anything.
The Russians don't scare me, though they have my respect.... They are reasonable players in the world so it's not that hard to figure out what they are going to do and how they are going to react to things. They are not going to do something really stupid and get into a shooting type conflict with the USA. They understand it would be a really bad thing for all involved. I think of them like a guard dog behind a fence. They may bark, but as long as I stay on this side of the fence, they won't hurt me.
Kim and the DPRK scare me. I have zero respect for them, but they scare me in so far as they can inflict significant damage. Everybody knows they'd not prevail should the cease fire agreement goes away and the Korean War goes into a shooting affair again. However, reducing DPRK's military to rubble would take a couple of days at least and in the mean time they'd be able to do some serious damage to South Korea. Think of them like a angry dog with no leash, collar or fence barking at you. You had better be ready to deal with them, draw the firearm and take the safety off.
..... BOOM
That's the sound of the antiaircraft gun firing squad removing the jarhead from the gene pool..