Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Clinton emails continue to be non-scandal, disappointing Republicans - (check out this forum! LOL!)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/04/clinton-emails-continue-to-be-non-scandal-disappointing-republicans/[font size="3"]
While we were all busy laughing about how insecure Donald Trump is about the size of his manhood, the New York Times released this story, the latest development in the case of Hillary Clinton’s emails:
What does this tell us? Although it’s possible there will be some future discovery, it appears that whether Clinton’s emails were vulnerable to hacking or not, they weren’t actually hacked. That’s good news! The closest thing they’ve found is some attempts at phishing scams, which means that Clinton’s email is just like every other email address on earth.
Now let’s be honest. When this story broke, Republicans were desperately hoping that we would learn that some criminal wrongdoing or catastrophic security breach had taken place, so they could then use that against Clinton in her run for the White House. But that turns out not to be the case. [font size="+1"]So the next best thing from their perspective is that there’s some vaguely-defined “scandal” that the public doesn’t really understand, but that voters will hold against her if you just repeat the words “Clinton email scandal” often enough.
They may have gotten that. I’ve certainly seen plenty of voters quoted in press accounts saying some version of, “I don’t trust Clinton, ’cause you know, that email thing.” I’m sure 99 percent of them couldn’t tell you what they think Clinton actually did that’s so awful, but they know that there was something about emails, and it was, like, a scandal, right?[/font]
~~
~~
She should have known that once she started running for president there were going to be FOIA requests and lawsuits and investigations of everything she did as Secretary of State. So yes, that was an error in judgment*. But it wasn’t a crime — and it appears that no bad consequences for the country came of it — so we shouldn’t treat it like it was.
(more)
While we were all busy laughing about how insecure Donald Trump is about the size of his manhood, the New York Times released this story, the latest development in the case of Hillary Clinton’s emails:
A former aide to Hillary Clinton has turned over to the F.B.I. computer security logs from Mrs. Clinton’s private server, records that showed no evidence of foreign hacking, according to people close to a federal investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails.
The security logs bolster Mrs. Clinton’s assertion that her use of a personal email account to conduct State Department business while she was the secretary of state did not put American secrets into the hands of hackers or foreign governments.
The former aide, Bryan Pagliano, began cooperating with federal agents last fall, according to interviews with a federal law enforcement official and others close to the case. Mr. Pagliano described how he set up the server in Mrs. Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, N.Y., and according to two of the people, he provided agents the security logs.
What does this tell us? Although it’s possible there will be some future discovery, it appears that whether Clinton’s emails were vulnerable to hacking or not, they weren’t actually hacked. That’s good news! The closest thing they’ve found is some attempts at phishing scams, which means that Clinton’s email is just like every other email address on earth.
Now let’s be honest. When this story broke, Republicans were desperately hoping that we would learn that some criminal wrongdoing or catastrophic security breach had taken place, so they could then use that against Clinton in her run for the White House. But that turns out not to be the case. [font size="+1"]So the next best thing from their perspective is that there’s some vaguely-defined “scandal” that the public doesn’t really understand, but that voters will hold against her if you just repeat the words “Clinton email scandal” often enough.
They may have gotten that. I’ve certainly seen plenty of voters quoted in press accounts saying some version of, “I don’t trust Clinton, ’cause you know, that email thing.” I’m sure 99 percent of them couldn’t tell you what they think Clinton actually did that’s so awful, but they know that there was something about emails, and it was, like, a scandal, right?[/font]
~~
~~
She should have known that once she started running for president there were going to be FOIA requests and lawsuits and investigations of everything she did as Secretary of State. So yes, that was an error in judgment*. But it wasn’t a crime — and it appears that no bad consequences for the country came of it — so we shouldn’t treat it like it was.
(more)
* whether it was an error in judgement is subject to debate... .
Sources: State Dept. hack the 'worst ever'
CNN)Overlooked in the controversy over Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, is the fact that suspected Russian hackers have bedeviled State Department's email system for much of the past year and continue to pose problems for technicians trying to eradicate the intrusion.
Federal law enforcement, intelligence and congressional officials briefed on the investigation say the hack of the State email system is the "worst ever" cyberattack intrusion against a federal agency. The attackers who breached State are also believed to be behind hacks on the White House's email system, and against several other federal agencies, the officials say.
The issue is relevant because one criticism of the Clinton private email use is that it was likely less secure than emailing within the State Department's system. But the hack shows that State's system has major security issues. The State system, investigators believe, was compromised in the past year, likely after Clinton left the State Department.
Last November, the State Department shut down its email system over a weekend to try to improve security and block the intruders.
At the time, the agency tried to send a re-assuring message that "activity of concern" by possible hackers only affected its unclassified email system.
But officials say that even a breach of the unclassified system poses major security risks, because sensitive information of value to foreign intelligence agencies is routinely shared in non-classified emails.
"An error in judgement"? .. Colin Powell and Condi Rice used personal email accounts for official business and the Bush White House had a couple dozen WH advisors who had personal email accounts with a commercial email provider (all controlled by and under the account of the Republican National Committee), so Clinton was hardly doing anything out of the ordinary EXCEPT FOR THE FACT that personal email accounts provided by commercial email service providers have hundreds of personell whose job it is to protect their email systems/servers from malware and hackers. In order to do their jobs they have the ability to examine any and all emails in their system. Thus any government emails in such accounts are by definition NOT SECURE. We do know that Powell and Rice had emails with classified information in them. But Clinton's set up was, in effect, a government satellite server. As the article points out, there are no indications that her server was hacked.
SEE: THE SHOCKING TRUTH: COLIN POWELL’S EMAILS DON’T MATTER
and: FLASHBACK: When Millions Of Lost Bush White House Emails (From Private Accounts) Triggered A Media Shrug
54 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
began with my brief Reply 3, which objected to the article's referring to the two, as though they were interchangeable, without distinguishing sufficiently between them. Apparently, those two sentences went over your head because you've been posting rude, nonsense and non sequiturssince. Now your "correct' me by saying what my Reply 3 said in the first place.
What a poor use of your time and mine! Inasmuch as the last word seems to be your only goal in these pointless exchanges, take it with my blessing. Here's hoping you succeed in getting over yourself. Trust me, that really should not be as difficult as you make it seem.
for the repug-generated email scandal. They post several OPs everyday that any minute now an indictment will be handed down and Hillary Clinton will be perp-walked in cuffs from whatever campaign trail podium she is speaking from — "untrustable liar that she is". 
Well, newsflash: Obama's FBI and DOJ are not going to destroy the Dem party and its November chances by indicting its leading candidate on an alleged scandal and leave all the next three SCOTUS appointments to Trump of Cruz?
Call it cynical or political or whatever you want but get real! Obama is one smart cookie. He's a Democratic politician and isnot going to let the Democratic Party be destroy by this so all the people praying for it can forget it.
....If this was posted b4 I didn't see it. I think if you see an article you saw before you would note that right away and stop right away - thus not wasting much of you valuable time. IF you read the entire article before you realized you read it before, then should you complain? I mean, you didn't remember your read it. Perhaps you needed to read it again for comprehension.
Also, keep in mind, many people are not on this site every day, nor are they on this site all day long. The result being, they may have missed a given post. (as I did, if you saw this before)
