@Cyan:
SHITlerLIARy RUDEham CORRUPTon
I said this entire thing in a Alex Jones type voice. Doesn't roll off the tongue all that well.
@Cyan:
SHITlerLIARy RUDEham CORRUPTon
I said this entire thing in a Alex Jones type voice. Doesn't roll off the tongue all that well.
Apparently even the emails that were marked classified were marked incorrectly, and there wasn't anything classified on them at all.
Great use of millions of taxpayer dollars that was.
And again worth noting that individuals who held the position of Secretary of State prior to Clinton, such as Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice’s staff (But not Rice herself apparently) also used private email servers to send classified government material. And they deleted 22 million emails after the public discovered that eight U.S. Attorneys were fired by the Bush Administration in 2007.
The nuances may be slightly different, but overall they did basically the same thing, minus the fbi investigation.
@Mikey:
Wait, the name "Shillary" is apparently out of line but calling Trump "Hitler" isn't?
That's because Trump is Hitler, but Hillary isn't a shill or a liar (or at least, not any more than any of her fellow colleagues).
With the exception of Marco, these are gold. Lol.
When you said you had voted in the primary, was that for the election or class president.
Yes, because trying to combine "Shill" AND "Liar" with Hillary, at the same time, and usng caps to make it clear, ShiLIARy is forcing the joke. Trying too hard.
Why did I think it was "shit" + "liar"? lol
Apparently even the emails that were marked classified were marked incorrectly, and there wasn't anything classified on them at all.
Great use of millions of taxpayer dollars that was.And again worth noting that individuals who held the position of Secretary of State prior to Clinton, such as Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice’s staff (But not Rice herself apparently) also used private email servers to send classified government material. And they deleted 22 million emails after the public discovered that eight U.S. Attorneys were fired by the Bush Administration in 2007.
The nuances may be slightly different, but overall they did basically the same thing, minus the fbi investigation.
Probably one of the reasons there was no recommendation to prosecute. You can't prosecute one without being expected to prosecute them all.
My favorite political insult is Barack Ocrumbo
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
The funny thing about shitlLIARy is that there's also 'hitler' in there too.
Republicans are really desperate, aren't they.–- Update From New Post Merge ---And I'm not believing the last one one bit.
Why are AA's & latino's the only minorities that have their polls shown? You never hear about anyone else's.
Why are AA's & latino's the only minorities that have their polls shown? You never hear about anyone else's.
The largest minorities in America and the ones that make a serious chunk of the population in most states (oddities like Hawaii excepted). They're the ones that can make a state swing.
Why are AA's & latino's the only minorities that have their polls shown? You never hear about anyone else's.
Because there's a lot of them and in strategically important concentrations.13% of the US is black.And of the US population (tallied separate from race because it is) Latinos are 17%.Meanwhile the stupidly broad and nearly meaningless catch-all of "Asian" is at 4% and is the next biggest after those two.And strictly speaking it's not even true what you say, you can find the polling for all sorts of minority groups out there. But not reported so often because of a lack in relevance and impact generally speaking.
http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/07/07/just-in-state-department-declares-fbi-director-was-wrong-about-clintons-emails-they-were-not-marked/Apparently even the emails that were marked classified were marked incorrectly, and there wasn't anything classified on them at all.
Ah, Robby. You need to dig deeper. This is the source of the article you posted: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/hillary-clinton-classified-emails-error-225194. From there:
Kirby acknowledged that he could not say for sure whether "human error" accounted for all such instances of classification markings the FBI identified in Clinton's private email account because Comey said the FBI had recovered more such emails than the ones Clinton provided to State in December 2014.
This is more an instance of the State Dept covering its own ass than exonerating Hillary.@Robby:
And again worth noting that individuals who held the position of Secretary of State prior to Clinton, such as Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice’s staff (But not Rice herself apparently) also used private email servers to send classified government material.
Again, you're lying. Lying by omission, but lying. I'll say this again. An email forwarded to your Gmail account is not the same as an email you store on a hard drive.@Robby:
And they deleted 22 million emails after the public discovered that eight U.S. Attorneys were fired by the Bush Administration in 2007.
Unless they deleted said emails from their fictitious "private email server" that they used in lieu of government servers, then I don't see how this is relevant to Clinton's case at all. Oh, and did they also expose confidential emails to their personal lawyers? Because Clinton did.@Robby:
The nuances may be slightly different, but overall they did basically the same thing
Once again. Not the same ballpark, barely the same sport. But yeah, keep repeating it. That will make it true.
Ah, Robby. You need to dig deeper. This is the source of the article you posted: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/hillary-clinton-classified-emails-error-225194. From there: This is more an instance of the State Dept covering its own ass than exonerating Hillary. Again, you're lying. Lying by omission, but lying. I'll say this again. An email forwarded to your Gmail account is not the same as an email you store on a hard drive. Unless they deleted said emails from their fictitious "private email server" that they used in lieu of government servers, then I don't see how this is relevant to Clinton's case at all. Oh, and did they also expose confidential emails to their personal lawyers? Because Clinton did. Once again. Not the same ballpark, barely the same sport. But yeah, keep repeating it. That will make it true.
I think we're both pretty entrenched in how we feel on this. . I won't waste your time again after this. Just please actually answer the questions I have at the end, without calling me a liar, or insisting I'm making strawman arguments, or that I'm just "not digging deep enough".
I gladly admit that I can be misinformed or mistaken about something. If given new facts, I adapt my stance accordingly, such as it only being Rice's staff that sent classified information over email, and not Rice herself. On this very issue I thought Hillary had done wrong six months ago until I looked into it further.
From all that I have read and looked at, it really, really seems like it's not a big deal ethically, morally, technically, or legally, to anyone that isn't actively trying to find something to blame Hillary for.
So… Basically repeating old stuff, one last time
[hide]They used private emails. They or their aides sent classified information not on the government server. They didn't use the government server. They sent inormation that was classified after the fact, including materials that had been public knowledge and printed in newspapers. Yes, there is a minor distinction to be made between what Clinton did and they did, but its nitpicking at best. It is not "lying but omission" but "putting aside bullshit and politics to talk about the actual matter."
MULTIPLE different sources all state they had different servers, maybe private, maybe not, your terminology on what constitutes "private" "server" and "secure" may vary. But they all equate it to being pretty much the same the same thing.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes-past-secretaries-of-state/209044
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/5-things-you-might-have-missed-in-the-clinton-email-report/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/09/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/19/colin-powell-emails-hillary-clinton-424187.html
I'm sorry if pbs, cnn, newsweek, and politifact aren't up to your standards.
Politifact agrees with you very specific analysis that no, they didn't do it on a private server. So it wasn't 100% the same thing, no. But that they did use private non secured accounts for stuff that was classified after the fact.
They still sent information out into the wild, on private emails,, and they also deleted a mass of emails, and it wasn't a big deal then, and it isn't a big deal now.
They all had a special email for stuff that was for materials classified at the time, and they used that for such.
Where did Powell and Rice’s staff have their servers? Who knows, and who cares? Maybe they were private with special security and no public access. Or maybe they were just an AOL server. (Powell did use an aol account at the time to communicate with foreign dignitaries) Whichever it was, they would be just as open to hacking as the State Department servers. In fact, the State Department general email system has been hacked multiple times, with terabytes of information improperly downloaded. There has been no indication that the email accounts of either Powell or Rice’s staff or Clinton's were compromised.[/hide]
So where exactly is the issue? WHY is it a big deal that Clinton did, for all intents and purposes, the exact same thing as her predecessors and did not actually risk, or deliver, national security? Why is her deleting mails an issue when other mass quantities aren't?
Please don't again use the answer of "it only matters because she is running for president", it should equally apply to anyone that has classified info. It's either an irresponsible act of negligence for both parties, or it's not. It doesn't matter how big or small the position, if its bad for one person to do it, its bad for the other, and if its okay that they did it, then its okay for the other.
If one of her aides had specifically said "Ma'am, this has serious security flaws like such and such" and then she dismissed them, or they went overlooked which eventually led to a hacking, that would be one thing. But it wasn't, nothing actually happened, nothing ill was intended, and no one made a point of it, and it was harmless and not irresponsible, until the Republicans needed some sort of annual scandal to hit her with.
In fact, that's exactly what happened in 2011, to Jonathan Gration. As the new U.S. ambassador to Kenya wrote a memo to his staff authorizing them to use private email for daily communication. The inspector general report says the State Department dispatched a security adviser to tell the ambassador it was against agency policy. Gration continued to use private email, and as a result of that and other problems, the State Department initiated a disciplinary hearing. But Gration resigned before any penalty was imposed.
While several dozen lower deputies at the State Department used personal email occasionally, the report said Gration was the only other official to exclusively use a personal account for regular department business.
No one said anything of the sort or advised Clinton in any such capacity. The State Department? The inspector general? Her lawyers? Any of the people being contacted? The guys that set up the servers? None of them said "Hey, that's a bad idea, stop it" in any of the YEARS she did it. If it was considered a genuine issue, any number of agencies. political and technical, that had more knowledge about the matter had the responsibility of informing her, and had years to brings it up and make her aware of the problem. If she wasn't informed of problems, if she didn't refuse to take actions to deal with any such problems, and nothing actually happened? Then nothing was wrong.
If you can find a credible source that says she was told in advance of all these potential problems (and not after the fbi investigations started) and still failed to heed them, I will change my stance and agree with you that she did something wrong and irresponsible, even if absolutely nothing actually of it.
But if it hadn't been a "scandal" no one would have ever cared or given it five seconds of thought.
Republicans are really desperate, aren't they.–- Update From New Post Merge ---[qimg]http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3860/9724/original.jpg?w=600&h[/qimg]And I'm not believing the last one one bit.
Polls tend to get different results I posted a poll last week that had Trump's support among blacks at 1% this one has it at 5.
Yeah polls tend to vary quite a bit between organizations and iterations. It's one reason analytic sites like fivethirtyeight use a 10 day rolling average of poll results for their predictions.
@Monkey:
When you said you had voted in the primary, was that for the election or class president.
And there are some people here who think I'm "angry", "abrasive" and "insulting". xD
And Robby says I'm "angry", "abrasive" and "insulting". xD
And Monkey King has been banned multiple times for his attitude. Full account bans even, not just thread bans. In spite of his amount of activity, how many friends he has, his senior status, or the fact that hes been here for ten years. He had a week long forum ban earlier this year. I've been the one to ban him more than once despite getting along with him just fine.
What's exactly is your point?
If you can find a credible source that says she was told in advance of all these potential problems (and not after the fbi investigations started) and still failed to heed them, I will change my stance and agree with you that she did something wrong and irresponsible, even if absolutely nothing actually of it.But if it hadn't been a "scandal" no one would have ever cared or given it five seconds of thought.
I usually disagree with cooldud on things, but he's really right when he says that people who actually go through the process to get security clearances are astonished at what Hillary did.No credible source for what you're asking for should be required, Robby. People who get security clearances go through training regarding classification markings and what is and is not okay for you to do with classified material. I don't think that I can count how many times that I've been told that it's extremely unsafe to send classified information to your gmail account, let alone a privately managed server with little to no safeguards against hacking.Just the fact that Hillary had a security clearance should tell you that she should have known better.
I already covered this. Explicitly.
@me:
If one of her aides had specifically said "Ma'am, this has serious security flaws like such and such" and then she dismissed them, or they went overlooked which eventually led to a hacking, that would be one thing. But it wasn't, nothing actually happened, nothing ill was intended, and no one made a point of it, and it was harmless and not irresponsible, until the Republicans needed some sort of annual scandal to hit her with.
In fact, that's exactly what happened in 2011, to Jonathan Gration. As the new U.S. ambassador to Kenya wrote a memo to his staff authorizing them to use private email for daily communication. The inspector general report says the State Department dispatched a security adviser to tell the ambassador it was against agency policy. Gration continued to use private email, and as a result of that and other problems, the State Department initiated a disciplinary hearing. But Gration resigned before any penalty was imposed.
While several dozen lower deputies at the State Department used personal email occasionally, the report said Gration was the only other official to exclusively use a personal account for regular department business.
No one said anything of the sort or advised Clinton in any such capacity. The State Department? The inspector general? Her lawyers? Any of the people being contacted? The guys that set up the servers? None of them said "Hey, that's a bad idea, stop it" in any of the YEARS she did it. If it was considered a genuine issue, any number of agencies. political and technical, that had more knowledge about the matter had the responsibility of informing her, and had years to brings it up and make her aware of the problem. If she wasn't informed of problems, if she didn't refuse to take actions to deal with any such problems, and nothing actually happened? Then nothing was wrong.
There were a ton of other people people that had the responsibility to tell her that was a bad move, if it truly was that bad. You may know it as "common knowledge" as someone that grew up in the age of the internet, but it ain't. Exactly how unsafe and unsecured was her server? Was there literally zero security? A password system? Encryption? Almost as much as gmal? More than gmail, less than the government servers (which have also been hacked multiple times?)
Also, the "security clearances" needed… She DID know better! All the stuff that was classified up front and labelled as such... WAS sent through more secure channels. That's WHY there wasn't anything classified on her servers.
Anything that was confidential went through another program entirely. The exact same way Powell and Rice's staff did it. One thing for classified stuff, another for general. The entire point of the investigation was the claim that she recklessly sent classified material through her server.
ANd the extremely thorough FBI investigation that cost millions of dollars and hundreds of manpower hours decided.... nothing that was confidential at the time went through, anything that was classified later was the sort of stuff that was in the newspaper, and that it's likely Hillary herself never even saw those handful of mails to begin with.
-If she wasn't informed of the apparent vast number of risks, then she wasn't informed of it, no fault on her for preferring what was convenient.
-If she WAS informed, and ignored it, but if nothing came of it, its still not a big deal but bad on her, an oversight in judgement for the sake of convenience.
-If she WAS informed, and ignored it, and sent lots and lots of confidential information on it, but nothing bad happened, that's a definite mistake.
-If she WAS informed, and ignored it, and sent lots and lots of confidential information on it, and it was hacked in a way that info got out, then yes,we needed an investigation.
-If she WAS informed, and ignored it, and sent lots and lots of confidential information on it, and it was hacked in a way that info got out, and it seems like she did that intentionally, then wholly hell, yes,we absolutely needed an investigation and she shouldn't be running for office.
See the vast level of difference there? How one thing is a unknown harmless mistake, and another is major issue? If its at the top end then its no big deal, if its near the bottom then I agree with you that she majorly fucked up.
If someone can tell me with facts where it falls as to how complicit and informed she was of the mistake she was making, why no one else including the multiple security agencies made any deal about it for four years , and just how nonexistant her security was, I will gladly change my opinion. and agree she did an awful thing. Otherwise, it really, really comes off as just another overblown republican attack desperately grasping for anything they can possibly think of.
This ain't Watergate, no matter how much they want it to be.
Um. Frankly, I think that you're missing the point. And quoting yourself from two posts ago is sort of dumb because that's exactly what I was responding to. Just the fact that she even thought that it might be, perhaps, on the off chance, sure what could happen, I don't give a shit it's more convenient, okay to start communicating on a personal e-mail account stuff that was highly specific to work means that she made a huge lapse in judgment. You shouldn't even be bothering to distinguish between the cases of (1) so what, there's no evidence of hacking, and (2) even if it was hacked, it doesn't matter and (3) uh oh, she was hacked, that was a big security breach. The fact is that she blatantly disregarded training that EVERYONE who gets cleared has to go through on a yearly basis AT LEAST, and decided to do something with classified information that was simply more convenient for her. That's a huge misstep. Furthermore, literally anyone who goes through security clearance training understands that an individual document that has a low level of classification, when lumped together with many other documents of the same classification or higher, AUTOMATICALLY becomes a higher level of classification. She clearly had lots of classified documents together in a location that was extremely easy to read them all - technically that makes the entire server a repository of a much higher classification level. On top of ALL of this: the private server was little more than a hard drive in her house. It didn't have an entire team of people watching it to make sure it wasn't hacked. That almost assuredly means that if it was hacked, there'd be NO WAY TO TELL. Stop downplaying it, Robby. It was a huge misstep on her part, and she knows it, even if you don't seem to. Bottom line is that it was a really stupid and selfish move on her part, and it's kind of ridiculous that you keep defending her as if nothing bad happened as a result. In reality, that hard drive that she was storing e-mails on should have been in a secure environment that never, ever, EVER was even close to being hardwired to the internet. The fact that it was means that she made a huge breach of secure information that (for all we know) could have had far reaching impacts on the people that the information was about.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Like, I don't know why you are "cherry picking" from the FBI investigation that a lot of the e-mails were classified after the fact. They ALSO said that several (not just one - enough to get anyone who has a clearance fired and denied work ever again) had information that was classified BEFORE the e-mails were sent! That's a huge breach! Like, no question about it, a huge breach! Quit pretending it's not!
Um. Frankly, I think that you're missing the point. And quoting yourself from two posts ago is sort of dumb because that's exactly what I was responding to. Just the fact that she even thought that it might be, perhaps, on the off chance, sure what could happen, I don't give a shit it's more convenient, okay to start communicating on a personal e-mail account stuff that was highly specific to work means that she made a huge lapse in judgment. You shouldn't even be bothering to distinguish between the cases of (1) so what, there's no evidence of hacking, and (2) even if it was hacked, it doesn't matter and (3) uh oh, she was hacked, that was a big security breach. The fact is that she blatantly disregarded training that EVERYONE who gets cleared has to go through on a yearly basis AT LEAST, and decided to do something with classified information that was simply more convenient for her. That's a huge misstep. Furthermore, literally anyone who goes through security clearance training understands that an individual document that has a low level of classification, when lumped together with many other documents of the same classification or higher, AUTOMATICALLY becomes a higher level of classification. She clearly had lots of classified documents together in a location that was extremely easy to read them all - technically that makes the entire server a repository of a much higher classification level. On top of ALL of this: the private server was little more than a hard drive in her house. It didn't have an entire team of people watching it to make sure it wasn't hacked. That almost assuredly means that if it was hacked, there'd be NO WAY TO TELL. Stop downplaying it, Robby. It was a huge misstep on her part, and she knows it, even if you don't seem to. Bottom line is that it was a really stupid and selfish move on her part, and it's kind of ridiculous that you keep defending her as if nothing bad happened as a result. In reality, that hard drive that she was storing e-mails on should have been in a secure environment that never, ever, EVER was even close to being hardwired to the internet. The fact that it was means that she made a huge breach of secure information that (for all we know) could have had far reaching impacts on the people that the information was about.–- Update From New Post Merge ---Like, I don't know why you are "cherry picking" from the FBI investigation that a lot of the e-mails were classified after the fact. They ALSO said that several (not just one - enough to get anyone who has a clearance fired and denied work ever again) had information that was classified BEFORE the e-mails were sent! That's a huge breach! Like, no question about it, a huge breach! Quit pretending it's not!
Bernie Sanders is not being drafted to replace Hillary in the election, sorry.
^ omg zephos you so funny.
If you don't hate Hillary, it's really not a big deal. No one in the fbi, state department, inspector general, etc. had any problem with it for four years, when its the sort of thing they could and should have informed her was a problem within days of her switching her email account.
If you do have a problem with her, its an unimaginably huge breach and massive error on her part.
That's 100% where the dividing line on this issue seems to be, now that the fbi has settled the thing.
Hmm. Funny that you see it that way. Because I surely don't hate her, but I still think that it was stupid as hell. How many times do I have to say that I'm voting for her before you all recognize that I'm not just some Bernie Bro? Peath out.
Again. Please point to the time when someone, anyone, in the course of four years, actually told her it was a security risk or against regulations and she ignored it.
If such a moment exists I am immediately on the side of "she did very wrong"and won't defend her on the issue again.
Lol, wait, so mandatory yearly training where they specifically say that doesn't count?! shakes head This is why I say that you're completely missing the point.
And no one during those yearly mandatory lessons said anything about what she was doing?
No one of the many many people in positions to know this that received her emails?
Was there literally no security whatsoever on her server or was there some?
If there was literally zero security, was Hillary aware of this or did someone assure her otherwise?
If Hillary was aware, did she refuse to address the problem anyway?
These are super duper easy questions to answer that will sway me on the spot.
She made a mistake, that's obvious. How severe an oversight on her part, how bad the actual problem was, and what the people around her told her are all factors in how big a deal this is or isn't.
Regarding your security questions, I'm not sure. But even if it was password authenticated, that's as good as zero security to modern day hackers. Politifact disagrees with your statement that zero (at the time) classified e-mails were sent through the server. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/06/hillary-clinton/fbi-findings-tear-holes-hillary-clintons-email-def/
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Lessons aren't always delivered in person, often times they are electronic courses. Regardless, all of the information is provided. It's not like the computer can say, "Hey, wait, Hillary. I noticed that you used me the other day to forward an e-mail to your personal account that certainly had classified (even if unlabeled) information." It's up to the employee to constantly be vigilant and aware of the classification of the information that they're dealing with. Information security starts with you! (That's what these lessons always say)
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
Again, anyone else making this sort of mistake would lose their job and probably find it nigh impossible to get employed in the sector ever again.
Yes, Politifact says the exact letter of her brief to-the-point statement that she had to use repeatedly during a year long investigation wasn't correct, but that spirit and intent was.
The "false" is mostly about the dysfunction of government classifying process.
It’s important to remember that only "a very small number" of her emails, two, were marked classified (and we have since learned those were incorrectly marked) when they were first sent, and just 110 out of the 30,000 she turned over were classified but unmarked. Evidence seems to indicate that Clinton generally dealt with classified information in an appropriate manner.
Also, transparency advocates say the government regularly classifies more than it needs to. The government classifies incorrectly 70 percent of the time, according to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel.
Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University said some of the classified material the FBI identified might not be particularly sensitive." There is not a line in any of Mrs. Clinton's emails that meets the smell test of classification, which is their release would be damaging to our national security," he said.
Given these concerns, it’s reasonable to give Clinton a little benefit of the doubt regarding how she treated classified information that landed in her inbox unlabeled, said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists.
"If it had been marked as classified and she or her staff transmitted it through non-secure email anyway, that would have been an overt violation of procedures," Aftergood said. "If it wasn't marked as classified, then it could easily have been handled in good faith as unclassified."
Again, anyone else making this sort of mistake would lose their job and probably find it nigh impossible to get employed in the sector ever again.
Hey, already adressed this one too.
In fact, that's exactly what happened in 2011, to Jonathan Gration. As the new U.S. ambassador to Kenya wrote a memo to his staff authorizing them to use private email for daily communication. The inspector general report says the State Department dispatched a security adviser to tell the ambassador it was against agency policy. Gration continued to use private email, and as a result of that and other problems, the State Department initiated a disciplinary hearing. But Gration resigned before any penalty was imposed.
While several dozen lower deputies at the State Department used personal email occasionally, the report said Gration was the only other official to exclusively use a personal account for regular department business.
They told him almost immediately to stop when being improper. ANd hey, it did lead to resignation! You mean they notice this guy in a reasonably high position they spot doing bad email stuff and promptly tell him to stop, but they didn't notice much, much higher profile with much larger staff Clinton was doing it for four years? If so, thats not only a failing of Clinton's, then its also a failure of a LOT of high tier government agencies.
Unless they actually felt it was okay and secure.
I can take some of these questions.@Robby:
Was there literally no security whatsoever on her server or was there some?
There was some security on her server, but it was woefully inadequate. I've told you this before, but she'd have been better off storing her email on Gmail (or the State dept. email server, for that matter).@Robby:
If there was literally zero security, was Hillary aware of this or did someone assure her otherwise?
I have no idea. Here's how I see this. Having your own email server to handle a voluminous amount of state email is pretty much unprecedented, so this is clearly a decision she knowingly took. Once she took this decision, the buck stops with her with respect to all consequences of that decision. She contracted a no-name firm to run the server for her. Did she audit them? Was she aware of the potential risks of this move? If she was and still went ahead, then it's treasonous. If she didn't (and this is probably what happened) she was extremely careless about actions that could have had far reaching consequences. Intent matters for a criminal prosecution. But carelessness disqualifies you for jobs much less serious than the office of the President.@Robby:
If Hillary was aware, did she refuse to address the problem anyway?
Again, I'm guessing she wasn't aware. This looks like a huge blunder more than anything else. The part that worries me (apart from the carelessness) is that she attempted to cover her tracks (rather clumsily) by trying to wipe out the email server when people got wind of it. That exacerbated her error.@Robby:
She made a mistake, that's obvious.
I think we're all agreed on this. Most of the discussion seems to be about the seriousness and the scope of her mistake.
Here's how I see this. Having your own email server to handle a voluminous amount of state email is pretty much unprecedented, so this is clearly a decision she knowingly took. Once she took this decision, the buck stops with her with respect to all consequences of that decision.
Fair enough.
She contracted a no-name firm to run the server for her. Did she audit them? Was she aware of the potential risks of this move? If she was and still went ahead, then it's treasonous. If she didn't (and this is probably what happened) she was extremely careless about actions that could have had far reaching consequences.
And no one else she talked to informed her of the problems here? None of the security agencies she would have to work with on a daily basis? That received those emails and saw that they were on a unique server? No one has facts about what went into the decision?
Intent matters for a criminal prosecution. But carelessness disqualifies you for jobs much less serious than the office of the President. Again, I'm guessing she wasn't aware. This looks like a huge blunder more than anything else.
And in some cases something just flat out needs to happen once to set a real precedent and setup a procedure for things because it just hasn't been a thing in government before. They ha to change and adapt to when television changed how things worked, they have to change and adapt to a world where internet security is a thing. I'm sure after this kerfluffle there will be very exact government standards and rules about these things in the future. I know they've already started adding laws to the books over the last few years.
The part that worries me (apart from the carelessness) is that she attempted to cover her tracks (rather clumsily) by trying to wipe out the email server when people got wind of it.
Fair enough.
Not related, so please don't pass it off as irrelevant to the particular conversation as a comparison point, Im just curious. How DO you feel about the 22 million deleted republican emails after they had some scandal sniffed in their direction, and should they be investigated to the same degree Clinton was? If you said before I missed it in these giant walls of text.
That exacerbated her error. I think we're all agreed on this. Most of the discussion seems to be about the seriousness and the scope of her mistake.
Pretty much.
Having a private server to conduct government business on really isn't all that rare.
Trey Gowdy, he of the Benghazi Hearings (and a person who actually has leaked secret information at least twice in those hearings), has a private server that he uses for email. The RNC had one that the Bush Administration used a lot (for the explicit purpose of avoiding the government servers) and that was where the twenty-two million plus deleted emails were stored. Jeb Bush used a private server while Governor of Florida as well; he had about half a million emails stored on it with some of them containing information about security arrangements for nuclear power plants as well as messages about how Florida National Guard units would be deployed in Iraq.
Scott Walker in Wisconsin and apparently Bobby Jindal in Louisiana were in the same boat; Walker definitely had a private server that he used for official and campaign business.
I think we're both pretty entrenched in how we feel on this.
Despite what you might believe, I'm not heavily entrenched on this. I'm willing to be swayed by facts, which is why I've made it a point to thank you (and Ubiq) for your sources. And if I haven't, I do so now. Thanks for taking the time to indulge my skepticism. I am a cryptographer by training and am thus flabbergasted by the cavalier attitude towards sensitive data shown by Ms. Clinton. I was simply presenting an alternative viewpoint. A lot of what I'm saying comes from my background and the paranoia that entails.@Robby:
without calling me a liar, or insisting I'm making strawman arguments, or that I'm just "not digging deep enough".
Looking at this, I realise I must have come across as really hostile and confrontational. I'm sorry.@Robby:
They or their aides sent classified information not on the government server. They didn't use the government server.
Actually, no. As far as I've read, all the offending emails were forwards from the Government server to their private one, so that they may see it sooner. I may be wrong on this, however.@Robby:
Yes, there is a minor distinction to be made between what Clinton did and they did, but its nitpicking at best.
I think we disagree on this, and it looks like I'm not getting across to you. What Mr. Powell and Ms. Rice did was forward an email to their personal email (on a public provider, with established security practices and encryption in place, things that they take extremely seriously). What Ms. Clinton did was siphon more than 30,000 emails from the state dept.'s email server (so they were never there) and put them in a hard-drive with a network connection at her place. THESE IS NOT A MINOR DISTINCTION! While the email clients the her predecessors used are well-studied and attacked on a daily basis by adversaries from home and abroad, Ms. Clinton's home email server's security was ad-hoc at best, and a pincushion for attackers at the worst. The most difficult part for the FBI and security agencies right now is to determine if her server was ever hacked, or even if it wasn't, if any of her phone's communication with that server was ever intercepted. This cannot be understated.@Robby:
It is not "lying but omission" but "putting aside bullshit and politics to talk about the actual matter."
Again, I'm sorry for my language, but the "lying by omission" part was borne from my frustration about the distinction I'm trying to show being tossed aside. This is something I know a thing or two about, so if my point is not coming across, it is my failure. Once again, I'm sorry for projecting that outward.@Robby:
They all had a special email for stuff that was for materials classified at the time, and they used that for such.
A small reminder that Ms. Clinton's private server also contained email that was marked classified while she was storing it on there and not retroactively marked as such. This is not true for the other secretaries.@Robby:
Whichever it was, they would be just as open to hacking as the State Department servers.
But we're not comparing AOL's security with the State department's. We are comparing them both to Ms. Clinton's personal email server. If you're telling me that that server was provably more secure than the State dept. or AOL, then I don't really think we have anything to discuss.@Robby:
Why is her deleting mails an issue when other mass quantities aren't?
For one, she deleted emails after she was asked to hand over her server to the authorities. That was a colossal fuck up on her part.@Robby:
Please don't again use the answer of "it only matters because she is running for president", it should equally apply to anyone that has classified info. It's either an irresponsible act of negligence for both parties, or it's not. It doesn't matter how big or small the position, if its bad for one person to do it, its bad for the other, and if its okay that they did it, then its okay for the other.
Please don't get me wrong. It is bad for everyone involved. All three of the folks in question did something wrong. My argument is this: Mr. Rice's and Mr. Powell's mistakes are really minor as compared to Ms. Clinton's, from an information security stand point. And secondly, the formers' mistakes aren't relevant to this Presidential election, the latter's are. If any of them were to stand for office, I would have similar reservations about their candidacy too.@Robby:
No one said anything of the sort or advised Clinton in any such capacity. The State Department? The inspector general? Her lawyers? Any of the people being contacted? The guys that set up the servers? None of them said "Hey, that's a bad idea, stop it" in any of the YEARS she did it. If it was considered a genuine issue, any number of agencies. political and technical, that had more knowledge about the matter had the responsibility of informing her, and had years to brings it up and make her aware of the problem. If she wasn't informed of problems, if she didn't refuse to take actions to deal with any such problems, and nothing actually happened? Then nothing was wrong.
I'm sorry, I don't buy this defence. For one, most of them might not have known she was doing this, apart from the people that set up her server, who a) were taking orders b) being compensated for their trouble and c) would absolutely not want to jeopardise their own business by telling her that she shouldn't be employing them. It is incredibly easy to set up email forwarding to send emails addressed to abc@xyz to abc@def instead, so none of the people she worked with would have to know. Her lawyers only got involved when the shit-storm started brewing and even there, she made the mistake of exposing confidential data to them for inspection (not that any of it got leaked). The rest was addressed by benjamminbrown so I won't bore you with that.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
How DO you feel about the 22 million deleted republican emails after they had some scandal sniffed in their direction, and should they be investigated to the same degree Clinton was?
Absolutely.@Ubiq:
Having a private server to conduct government business on really isn't all that rare.Trey Gowdy, he of the Benghazi Hearings (and a person who actually has leaked secret information at least twice in those hearings), has a private server that he uses for email. The RNC had one that the Bush Administration used a lot (for the explicit purpose of avoiding the government servers) and that was where the twenty-two million plus deleted emails were stored. Jeb Bush used a private server while Governor of Florida as well; he had about half a million emails stored on it with some of them containing information about security arrangements for nuclear power plants as well as messages about how Florida National Guard units would be deployed in Iraq. Scott Walker in Wisconsin and apparently Bobby Jindal in Louisiana were in the same boat; Walker definitely had a private server that he used for official and campaign business.
Yeesh. I'm just shaking my head. At one extreme, I used to insist people send their email encrypted with my PGP public key (I used to be crazier :-D ). And at the other end, there are these jokers. But I must stress, just because her political opponents did it does not make her actions any more acceptable. They are all wrong in my book.
Thank you for taking the time to explain that all more clearly.
Yes, now I see the distinction between what Hillary did and what the previous did. I obviously am not well versed in these things, beyond what I am reading from all over the place, which pretty much mostly says "its the same as everyone else that has a private server." I will agree that it is a bit more severe in potential consequences due to the shoddy work of the contractors if its nearly as bad as you say, but will continue to disagree that it was anything particularly bad or ill intended, or that the overall gist was terribly different from any of the many others n government that have their own private servers.
And everything I'm seeing says that the tiny ammount of material that was "classified" was done so after the fact and not in an actual "high security" sort of way where it would look like anything that needed classifying and was mostly clerical.
She used the classified server or just talked in person for stuff that was obviously hot and did her job appropriately
Sometimes when you have a really big job, with a lot of employees, it's not actually your personal job to deal with such things, but the people who work under you that are supposed to look out for things that you may not have specific expertise in. I wouldn't expect her to know about internet hardware security beyond people telling her "it's good security" anymore than I would expect her to fetch the donuts and coffee in the morning. I expect her to be able to name countries on a map and dignitaries by sight, and know who we have treaties with and what the situation with the EU is and all the politics stuff. I expect her assistants to track and take care of the other stuff.
That "nobody knew" doesn't fly, because she's a high level individual with a toooooon of staff. Some people had to be aware. Like the state department. Under the hypothetical that the company lied to her about how good their security was, THEY should be the ones under heavy investigation.
ill intended
You don't need to disagree with me on that, because I'm not doubting her intent. I've basically been with the FBI director on this. She didn't have ill intent, she was merely colossally careless.@Robby:
She used the classified server or just in-person paperwork for stuff that was obviously hot and did her job appropriately
Which is what I don't get. Why wouldn't she use the same email for everything? I don't even see the point of having her own email server in the first place. It is also a little annoying, the fact that this entire thing could have been very easily avoided.@Robby:
Sometimes when you have a really big job, with a lot of employees, it's not actually your personal job to deal with such things, but the people who work under you that are supposed to look out for things that you may not have specific expertise in. Like the state department. That this slipped by for years is the weird thing to me.
I mean, someone could have pointed this out if they knew. As far as I know only her private staff knew about it and they're also being grilled with her. Email forwarding is so stupidly easy to set up that unless someone out there is specifically checking for this, they wouldn't see it, and I don't think anyone in the State dept. would openly suspect their boss unless they got wind of this somehow. But yes, practices like these should be audited better by whoever handles IT and infosec in the government (the DoD?). They could have easily got wind of this operation and shut it down pronto.
Why wouldn't she use the same email for everything? I don't even see the point of having her own email server in the first place. It is also a little annoying, the fact that this entire thing could have been very easily avoided.
Lots of people have multiple emails for multiple purposes. I myself have a personal account (aol), a work account (gmail), and a spam account. And I have multiple different storage accounts for multiple things. And I'm just a freelance artist with a fairly low quantity of stuff to track.
When you're dealing with that kind of sheer volume, having a more convenient way to organize it all or keep things separate can be a thing.
It might have even been the intent at some point to keep the nonesense daily stuff in one place and the classified in another.
But yes, practices like these should be audited better by whoever handles IT and infosec in the government (the DoD?). They could have easily got wind of this operation and shut it down pronto.
And I'm sure in the future it's going to be standard practice to check for this sort of thing in audits. If it really is that big a security risk, it is a failing on a lot of people's part to not have caught it sooner.
Under the hypothetical that the company lied to her about how good their security was, THEY should be the ones under heavy investigation.
They wouldn't have to outright lie to her. Unless she asked them specifically how secure their stuff was they have no reason to tell her that what she's doing is not kosher.@Robby:
Lots of people have multiple emails for multiple purposes. I myself have a personal account (aol), a work account (gmail), and a spam account. And I have multiple different storage accounts for multiple things. And I'm just a freelance artist with a fairly low quantity of stuff to track.
I understand that, lol. What I don't understand is the need to set up two email accounts for work purposes. In this day and age, with multiple inboxes in the the same inbox and the ability to setup sophisticated filters that automatically sort your email into categories for you.
I c ant believe Hillary got caught selling US American secrets to ISIS
So, regarding the whole email thing with Hillary, I was wondering how this all started in the first place? All I know is that this came out around the time of the Benghazi incident.
To me, the big question is how relevant it is, at least in the short term, given who the alternative is. Based on my understanding the far, carelessness in the name of trying to do your job seems better than the sheer incompetence promised by the Tangerine Tornado.
Also, a factor I'm not sure has been brought up (it likely has, i just haven't followed the thread closely/long enough) but another forum i frequent noted that the main reason Hillary (and perhaps predecessors) didn't use the government servers was because they were horribly outdated and she needed to do something just to do her job properly.
So, regarding the whole email thing with Hillary, I was wondering how this all started in the first place? All I know is that this came out around the time of the Benghazi incident.
The first republican created scandal of Benghazi didn't stick (as she didn't do anything wrong and there were 13 similar attacks during the Bush era) so they jumped on whatever else they could from that investigation which was the fact that it turned out her email security apparently wasn't great.
If the general response had been "The server she put things on wasn't as properly secured as it could have been and she mayor may not have inadvertently broken some laws using it, and might have accidentally let out some minor classified information. We should investigate since there was definitely some negligence on someone's part somewhere along the way" then that would have been fine and felt legitimate.
But instead the response was
"SHE TOTALLY COMMITTED CRIMES AND WAS INTENTIONALLY SELLING US ALL OUT FOR PROFIT AND MUST BE INDICTED BY THE FBI AS THE CRIMINAL SHE IS! IMMEDIATELY, BEFORE SHE CAN BECOME PRESIDENT! THIS JUST PROVES AS I ALREADY KNEW THAT SHE IS A SERIAL LIAR AND A CRIMINAL! IT'S THE NEW WATERGATE!"
Which sort of balloons it beyond reason into over reaction and makes it impossible to take seriously, or anyone strongly defending that particular narrative.
(Similarly, the "we shouldn't discuss appointing a new supreme court justice during heavy election period" could have at least had the vague appearance of legitimacy if the republican side at least pretended to listen to nominations and then deemed them inappropriate and the clock wound down that way to the last couple months of his presidency, but instead it was it said as "Nuh uh, Obama doesn't get to do that who only has a year left, we don't want whatever he says because party lines, and we're not even going to listen to a reasonable offer because will of the people!" five minutes after Scalia's death as a first response.)
The fact that here on a stupid rubber pirate forum it took three days to move away from the second thing of "She's clearly an idiot monster doing evil of the highest degree!" to the reasonable first "she made a mistake and that's a bad thing, the discussion now is how bad" and get people to provide an actual explanation of what she actually did and did not do, shows how fierce the narrative push and entrenched opinions are .
but another forum i frequent noted that the main reason Hillary (and perhaps predecessors) didn't use the government servers was because they were horribly outdated and she needed to do something just to do her job properly.
Pft, but that would be reasonable and make sense as an explanation. There's no evil machivellian overlord scheme and/or failure in that!
Executives are always the worst about managing their email and other technology. They fall for phishing scams more than anyone else and regularly try to get around the rules when it suits them.
On the bright side, perhaps this will lead to even greater emphasis on infosec within the state department. In my industry there has certainly been an awakening in that regard. User education and continuously reinforced training is key, along with articles about huge lawsuits centered around theft of information. No amount of network security can completely secure the most vulnerable point in your network… the user.
Bernie to endorse Hillary at an event in New Hampshire tomorrow.
He hasn't even released his first EP and he's already sold out. Time to vote for Jill Stein!
@Cyan:
Bernie to endorse Hillary at an event in New Hampshire tomorrow.
He hasn't even released his first EP and he's already sold out. Time to vote for Jill Stein!
EP? And hasn't Sanders been doing everything just shy of outright endorsing Clinton for a while now? This is hardly a surprise.
It was the inevitable outcome. He basically gave her his endorsement the moment he said he'd do everything in his power to make sure Donald Trump didn't become president, and that was before he said he was voting for Hillary. What's coming up next is like his "official" endorsement where he says everything out loud.
Trump declared himself the Law and Order candidate.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-law-and-order-candidate-dallas
Dude, it's too late to go back to the dog-whistles.
The first republican created scandal of Benghazi didn't stick (as she didn't do anything wrong and there were 13 similar attacks during the Bush era) so they jumped on whatever else they could from that investigation which was the fact that it turned out her email security apparently wasn't great.If the general response had been "The server she put things on wasn't as properly secured as it could have been and she mayor may not have inadvertently broken some laws using it, and might have accidentally let out some minor classified information. We should investigate since there was definitely some negligence on someone's part somewhere along the way" then that would have been fine and felt legitimate.But instead the response was "SHE TOTALLY COMMITTED CRIMES AND WAS INTENTIONALLY SELLING US ALL OUT FOR PROFIT AND MUST BE INDICTED BY THE FBI AS THE CRIMINAL SHE IS! IMMEDIATELY, BEFORE SHE CAN BECOME PRESIDENT! THIS JUST PROVES AS I ALREADY KNEW THAT SHE IS A SERIAL LIAR AND A CRIMINAL! IT'S THE NEW WATERGATE!"Which sort of balloons it beyond reason into over reaction and makes it impossible to take seriously, or anyone strongly defending that particular narrative.
Yeah, the Republican Party just wants to find anything they could pin her to stuff, even though it's not even reasonable to do so. It feels like they want the Obama administration to be blamed for anything even if it was not any of their fault. Though, they seem to have it out for Hillary Clinton though. I wonder why.
(Similarly, the "we shouldn't discuss appointing a new supreme court justice during heavy election period" could have at least had the vague appearance of legitimacy if the republican side at least pretended to listen to nominations and then deemed them inappropriate and the clock wound down that way to the last couple months of his presidency, but instead it was it said as "Nuh uh, Obama doesn't get to do that who only has a year left, we don't want whatever he says because party lines, and we're not even going to listen to a reasonable offer because will of the people!" five minutes after Scalia's death as a first response.)
Yeah, that whole supreme court thing. It's irritating that they still refuse to accept any of Obama's nominees, even if said nominee is a moderate/swing type of person. Hopefully, come November, they will be a better Democratic majority compared to now. These way, things can get done for once, instead of always being blocked because of one side hating the other party.
The fact that here on a stupid rubber pirate forum it took three days to move away from the second thing of "She's clearly an idiot monster doing evil of the highest degree!" to the reasonable first "she made a mistake and that's a bad thing, the discussion now is how bad" and get people to provide an actual explanation of what she actually did and did not do, shows how fierce the narrative push and entrenched opinions are .
Yeah, I still can't believe they still want to keep going even though the FBI director said she is not being charged. I remember hearing he is a Republican as well. I guess it shows how the party is slowing breaking apart, since they are not even trying to cooperate with the others in the party that disagree. What ever happen with compromising things? Oh well, with this coming election, hopefully they will learn that they need to change immensely if they still want to be around.
@Cyan:
Bernie to endorse Hillary at an event in New Hampshire tomorrow.
And all it took was getting booed by House Democrats.