Random thoughts on Clinton's email server

[CajunBlazer]

The server which Hillary Clinton used was installed by a State Department employee from their IT organization. My understanding Is that the server was installed using the same or better security measures than those which are installed the State Department official email servers.

The State Department regulations governing emails are contained in 346 locations in 13 of the 16 thick volumes of State Department regulations which would take weeks to read. Needless to say no one but the person(s) who wrote those regulations and the Inspector General have read them. The State Departments IT system is so antiquated that for years most State Departments have used their own email accounts to do business. That list includes former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Condalisa Rice, and early on, John Kerry.

What most people don’t realize is that the State Department has two sets of email servers, one set for classified information and another for unclassified, less sensitive traffic. While a few of thousands of Hillary’s emails classified retroactively, Hillarary’s server was used only for unclassified emails.

While many US government servers have been hacked, including some belonging to the Department of Defense, according to the security logs of the server there were hacking attempts on Hillary server, but none of them were successful. Perhaps the most ironic aspect of this case is ........
RANDOM COMMENTS ON CLINTON’S EMAIL SERVER

For a full perspective on the Inspector General's report, the following is an excellent article:

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-not-scandal-464414

[cherokeeprogressive]

1. Random thoughts LOL. Call that what it is: talking points.

[HumanityExperiment]

2. ...audit disagrees with you...

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-broke-federal-rules-email-server-audit-finds-n580131

"At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department issues before leaving government service," says an audit by the State Department Inspector General, obtained by NBC News.

"Because she did not do so, she did not comply with the [State] Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act."

The audit found that the non-compliance over personal email went beyond Clinton, and that former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a Republican, also failed to preserve government-related emails when he was secretary of state.

The State Department asked Powell to try to receive relevant emails from his internet provider, but "as of May 2016 the Department has not received a response" from Powell, the audit said.

Indeed, the report's conclusion cites "longstanding, systemic weaknesses" in electronic record-keeping "that go well beyond the tenure of any one secretary of state."

But the findings on Clinton are sure to reverberate through the 2016 presidential campaign, as her spokesman, Brian Fallon, noted in a statement.

[tandem5]

14. You understand that these are separate topics, right?

The quote you cite is in reference to the topic of document preservation under the FOIA. Record-keeping and its rules and regulations are discreet topics unrelated to the other subjects encompassed by "Clinton's emails." It has very little to do with whether or not she was "allowed" to run a private email server (another discreet topic). It has little to do with the topic of classified information, retroactive or otherwise and by extension any national security issues.

Say for instance that she followed the guidelines of the Records act to the letter. Specifically say that she printed out every government related email and filed it in a box (boxes) to be handed over at the end of her term. Then the above criticism that you quoted would no longer apply. However, if she kept this box in her house then all the separate security concerns voiced about the server could be applied to that box of papers. People could ask whether it was proper for her to store a box of material that was deemed to have contained retroactively sensitive material at her home. Was the box properly secured? Is a box located at a government office more secure than one located at a residence?

I only point this out to highlight how the separate subjects under "Clinton's emails" relate and don't relate.

[HumanityExperiment]

32. ...private server...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-hillary-clinton-emails-private-server-20160526-story.html


Private server.. 'nuff said

[tandem5]

34. ... ...

.. ..
. .
*poof*

[HumanityExperiment]

35. ..you got the msg...

good, you get the difference between email and private server

...poof to that misdirection indeed...

[tandem5]

36. no, I was just commenting on your odd use of ellipses

[HumanityExperiment]

45. ... ...

... ...

one for the road

[tandem5]

48. oh the memories are flooding back!

[CajunBlazer]

3. Read the second article before advertising your ignorance

[ismnotwasm]

5. I know right?

Geez.

[pmorlan1]

27. You do realize

that your post #3 is responding to your own OP

[HumanityExperiment]

33. ..read...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-hillary-clinton-emails-private-server-20160526-story.html

[Eccho]

54. ..why?...

Since when does linking to a commentary/oped count as proof of something?

[quickesst]

4. Personally...

... I'm on the verge of putting this into the "Obama is going to take your guns" category.

[AtomicKitten]

6. She jeopardized national security and lied about it.

[CajunBlazer]

8. That is total BS

Talk about Trump's talking points. And you repeat everything you read on the Internet. Read the second article and you will find you are the totally ignorant On the matter. Or maybe you shouldn't; you seem like the kind of person that doesn't like to hear anything that doesn't align with preconceived perceptions.

[AtomicKitten]

11. The IG report confirmed it.

[CajunBlazer]

18. That's a flagrant misstatement of facts

[Tarc]

23. You really don't have the slightest idea how to read the IG report

Or really understand it at all. At worst, it was a mild reprove for doing what most SoSs and what many gov't people do.

[Voice for Peace]

31. but the msm has been saying that Hillary lied, as it turns out, according to the IG report.

I heard it on many networks.. so... they don't believe her any more.

[ms liberty]

7. The State Department's system is antiquated

So antiquated that GOP SoS's had avoided it. So instead of fixing it, she just worked around it. Yea, let's go with that. Because fixing things would be too hard, and why would we want to, anyway?

[yallerdawg]

9. After 8 years of Bush and a global economy on the edge of collapse...

the Secretary of State should worry about her emails.

'Cause it's Hillary.

[ms liberty]

20. Way to miss the point.

My reply to Cajun Blazer might give you a hint.

[CajunBlazer]

10. You're cluelees

The Secretary of State is better things to do then closely supervise the IT professionals in her department. Also Congress only appropriate a limited amount of money for such IT services. But like a typicle Sanders supporter you brother blame Clinton than the Republicans.

[Octafish]

13. Wasn't GOP who set up an off-the-books email system.

There is no innocent excuse for it.

[ms liberty]

21. I've replied to Cajun Blazer's insulting post

And would appreciate your thoughts.

[jmowreader]

61. Colin Powell used Yahoo Mail, not a server of his own

Colin Powell also deleted all his unclassified messages before stepping down.

[Octafish]

64. Did Colin Powell's lawyer determine what was official and what was personal business?

Did Powell's personal emails contain communication with governments and businesses (now practically the same in many instances) that "contributed" to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative?

[jmowreader]

65. Did Bernie Sanders attempt to force poor Hispanics in Texas to accept Vermont's nuclear waste?

Did Bernie Sanders use his wife's "media consultancy" gig as a method to skim $90,000 in campaign contributions for his own use? (http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-bernie-sanders-caught-funneling-money-to/)

Does Bernie Sanders support the F-35 fighter? (http://taskandpurpose.com/sanders-position-on-the-f-35-contradicts-his-views-on-defense-spending/)

Did Bernie Sanders denounce American foreign policy to enemies of this country? http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-1985-praise-of-fidel-castro-sandinistas-220550

And do you think Donald Trump isn't going to drop all these bombshells on an American public who knows almost nothing about the man?

[ms liberty]

19. I'm not sure what you mean?

1. I have no idea what a cluelees is; if this is a typo and you meant clueless, you would be wrong and insulting as well.
2. I work for a multi million dollar corporation. We're currently going through the design and implementation of a new IT system; it's been going on now for more than a year, and is finally nearing the go live point. The owner of my company is also our President and CEO. He's not in the trenches and in on every decision, but he sure as hell knows everything that's going on, and he's got several people tasked with the responsibility of this project. Using that analogy, Hillary was equivalent to the owner of my company. Hillary was SoS, the head of the Department of State. If the IT systems were antiquated, it was her responsibility to budget for and implement an upgrade of those systems, and to task one or more of her staff to closely monitor and supervise said upgrades. If Congress didn't budget enough money, she should have lobbied, cajoled, and/or publicly shamed them to try and get it. If she did any of those things, it went totally under the radar, and completely unnoticed by the world. She could have raised quite the stink about it, many times, very publicly. And should have.
3. What is a typicle? If what you mean is typical, then you are being personally insulting, again. I've been watching and appreciating Bernie for nearly 20 years now, and if he had not run in this primary I would still not be supporting Hillary; she lost me permanently a long time ago, in 2008. This primary has nothing to do with my disgust at her total lack of interest in fixing a serious issue that impacts our international affairs and national security. And I do blame the republicans for allowing government IT systems to become antiquated, but we're democrats, and part of what we do - or should at least try to do anyway - is fix shit the republicans have screwed up. Like the IT systems at the Dept. of State. She appears to only have been interested in making sure she had a BlackBerry, was able to keep her friendship with Sidney Blumenthal secret from HER BOSS, and her emails away from any governmental record keeping. It didn't matter to her that State Dept. staff were using an impossibly antiquated system, as long as she didn't have to use it.
4. I do not understand your use of the word 'brother'; I have no male siblings and even if I did, it is incomprehensible why you would bring it up in the context of your comment. The only thing that comes to mind is that you may perhaps have meant to type 'rather' instead of brother.
5. Spell check is your friend. Really.

[yallerdawg]

24. Do you recall what was going on when Obama and Hillary took office?

I guarantee your company and CEO would not be tinkering with IT systems on the verge of collapse and $700,000,000,000 on the line.

Your argument is as relevant as spellchecker.

[ms liberty]

30. I remember very well

I expect a leader to be able to multitask. If the IT system is that bad, it is a national security issue, and 'tinkering with it' is not a solution.

[Octafish]

25. NIXONIAN

These are the implications of the issues you raised, ms liberty:

With Clinton’s Nixonian Email Scandal Deepening, Sanders Must Demand Answers

by DAVE LINDORFF
CounterPunch, MAY 27, 2016

EXCERPT...

The power couple’s two foundations, the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative, now together reportedly worth more than $2 billion, both function effectively as money-laundering operations providing salaries to Clinton family members and friends. And Hillary Clinton, particularly while serving as President Obama’s secretary of state, was in a perfect position to do favors for unsavory foreign leaders seeking to have their countries kept off of State Department lists of human rights violators, and for US businesses seeking lucrative business deals abroad. It’s those kinds of email conversations that would have benefitted from a private server, since US State Department official computers have dedicated back-up systems that would be hard or impossible to wipe, and are also by law subject to Freedom of Information inquiries from journalists and the public.

SNIP...

However Politico reports that on Wednesday, a report by the State Department’s Office of Inspector General, has issued its report on the emails. It is a scathing indictment, concluding that Clinton failed to comply with US government and State Department policies on records, and that counter to assertions made publicly by her, she never sought permission from the department’s legal staff to use a private server — a request which if made, the report insists “would not” have been approved. The inspector general’s report states, “At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.”

It’s not as though Clinton didn’t know what she was doing was wrong and even illegal. The just released report states that technology staff in the State Department’s Office of Information Resource Management, who raised concerns about her private server, were instructed by the department’s director, a Clinton appointee, “not to question the arrangement.” When one staffer mentioned that her private account could contain federal records that needed to be preserved “in order to satisfy federal recordkeeping requirements,” the report says the director of that office “stated that the Secretary’s personal system had been reviewed and approved by the department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further.” Yet the inspector general says that assertion by the director was false, as there was in fact no evidence that in the State Department’s office of the legal advisor had ever reviewed or approved the private system, or even been asked to do so by Clinton.

Again and again through her four years at State, Clinton is found to have resisted efforts to get her to stop using exclusively her private email to conduct official business. On several occasions, the report says, she expressly said her concern was having her mail subjected to FOIA, or in other words, public discovery. Clinton tried to claim that since her communications with State Dept. personnel ended up on their servers, there were records of her communications there. But as the report notes, that wouldn’t include any State Department-related communications she had with persons outside of the State Department or the government. And those are precisely the kinds of conversations that the public really needs to know about — particularly when we’re talking about someone who is running for the top position in government, and who has demonstrably spent years with her hand out to powerful people and organizations. After all, it is those communications that would include any discussions of financial transactions involving foreign or domestic interests seeking beneficial assistance from the Madam Secretary.

This scandal is not about someone simply ignoring some arcane rules. As Secretary of State, Clinton had a legal obligation to operate in an above-board, legal and transparent manner in conducting the business of government. Instead, for our years in office, she conducted that business in a manner that can only be called Nixonian, opting to openly violate the rules, to hide her communications from government oversight and public review, to dissemble about her allegedly having received clearance to do so, and even to attempt to erase records from her server when ordered to turn them over. Furthermore, suspicions have to be raised because if Clinton’s concerns were about people accessing her genuinely personal emails, she had only to set up a State Department email address and obtain a State Department secure Blackberry phone, and limit her personal server and personal Blackberry to genuinely personal emails and calls, conducting all State Department business on State Department systems. According to the IGO report, she studiously avoided doing that kind of segregation for four years despite frequent instructions and advice to do so.

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/27/with-clintons-nixonian-email-scandal-deepening-sandes-must-demand-answers/

Bottom line is burning red: Sec. Clinton ordered, created and used an off-the-books email system when she had been warned not to. Why she did remains to be discovered, but that's why it was off-the-books. From what appears: she didn't want the People to know what she was doing in our name, with whom she was doing it, and why she was doing it.

[ms liberty]

28. Having read your posts here for many years

I knew you would grasp the deeper implications of this issue. This is far more important than a dem primary preference. Thanks!

[yallerdawg]

38. Except for the part where she ...

archived her State business emails with the .gov State email addresses as recommended when using outside email service, and delivered hard copies of 55,000 pages of emails, "mitigating" any prior issue with record-keeping NARA (National Archives and Records Administration) compliance as mentioned in OIG report.

It is silly to think that she should be held to a higher compliance standard than if she had used a single State Department address - and then used her own server address for all other email correspondence unrelated to her State account!

And this was her evil master plan!

Ever heard of Occam's razor principle?

[Octafish]

43. Except she did not turn over all the emails.

Her lawyer determined which were official business and which were private.

Late 2014: Clinton, perhaps with assistance from some aides, decides to delete about half (31,860) of her emails from her time as secretary of state. In March 2015, she will tell reporters, "At the end, I chose not to keep my private, personal emails. E-mails about planning Chelsea's wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements. Condolence notes to friends, as well as yoga routines, family vacations - the other things you typically find in in-boxes. No one wants their personal emails made public." But The New York Times will report in August 2015, "That explanation might win public sympathy. But it did not take long for evidence to surface that the culling may have included some work-related emails as well." (The New York Times, 8/8/2015)

Source: The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline ©2016 #ClintonEmailTimeline
http://www.thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Short_Version_-_Part_2

Not even Ockham's razor knows what's what and what got cut out.

[yallerdawg]

44. That is the option as specified in the guidance.

"There is no question that former Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision — she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server," attorneys from the Justice Department's civil division wrote.

Judicial Watch had requested a court order from the judge to ensure that Clinton's emails were being preserved. But the Justice Department said there was no need for such an order given that Clinton had the right to delete personal emails and that those messages are not subject to the public records law.

The government said Judicial Watch had presented no evidence to suggest Clinton had mistakenly or intentionally deleted government records instead of personal emails, and said "government agencies are not required to take steps to recover deleted material based on unfounded speculation that responsive information had been deleted."

The Justice Department brief argues that "there is no legal basis in the (Freedom of Information Act) for requesters to obtain employees' personal records and, therefore, there is no legal basis for the court to order the State Department to preserve, or to take steps to preserve, the personal records of the former secretary or any other current or former federal employee."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hillary-clinton-was-allowed-delete-personal-emails-private-server-justice-n426376

[Octafish]

47. Big Deal.

She did not turn over all the emails.

Why? I don't know.

I can guess they show she mixed official business with private gain. She has on the past:

"During the periods when Secretary Clinton was pushing governments to sign deals with Boeing, the aerospace company provided financial support to help her achieve a major foreign-policy goal. Boeing also donated more than $1 million to the Clinton family’s global foundation set up by her husband, former President Clinton, and sponsored speeches that paid him six-figure sums." -- http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/as-hillary-clinton-bolstered-boeing-company-returned-the-favor/

Which helps explain why We the People have a right to know what our elected officials do with their powers while in offices

[840high]

58. National security doesn't interest you?

[CentralMass]

12. There seems to be differing opinions on the finding to date.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/state-department-report-j_b_10160816.html

"This report is highlighted in a CNN article titled State Department report slams Clinton email use:

(CNN)A State Department Inspector General report said former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton failed to follow the rules or inform key department staff regarding her use of a private email server, according to a copy of the report obtained by CNN on Wednesday.

The report, which was provided to lawmakers, states, “At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.”

...the report notes that interviews with officials from the Under Secretary for Management and the Office of the Legal Adviser found “no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff” of the server.

...the report says that the Inspector General’s office “found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server.”

Thus, every legal defense of Clinton’s emails has just been shattered.

First, Clinton’s “convenience” excuse, which rests upon the notion that the State Department allowed her to use a private server, is now obsolete. As explained in the State Department report, there’s “no evidence” Clinton asked for, or received, approval for a private server.

This undermines every defense for Clinton, since the narrative must go from “convenience” and naiveté, to intentionally breaking protocol. Even before the State Department report, I stated during my recent MSNBC appearance that Clinton’s convenience narrative wasn’t enough to circumvent political repercussions."

"As stated in the report, State Department protocol and guidelines correlate to existing laws regarding record keeping and the handling of classified data. Now that Clinton can’t simply claim “convenience,” there’s the obvious intent to hide information.

Whether or not the over 30,000 emails she deleted were truly private (or about yoga) is now irrelevant; they should never have been combined with classified data, on an unguarded private server.

This isn’t Whitewater. It’s a huge story, and a controversy that will lead to the FBI recommending indictments. If you disagree, then store your Social Security number, bank account information, and address on a friend’s private server. After you’ve stored your most precious data on another person’s server, then try to sleep easy at night.

Nobody before Clinton, Republican or Democrat, has ever linked a private server to government networks used to store Top Secret intelligence.

Hillary Clinton broke State Department guidelines, which makes storing 22 Top Secret emails on the server even more egregious. As explained by CBS News in January, these files contained Special Access Program information:

The Obama administration confirmed for the first time Friday that Hillary Clinton’s unsecured home server contained some of the U.S. government’s most closely guarded secrets, censoring 22 emails with material demanding one of the highest levels of classification.

...But seven email chains are being withheld in full because they contain information deemed to be “top secret.” The 37 pages include messages recently described by a key intelligence official as concerning so-called “special access programs” - a highly restricted subset of classified material that could point to confidential sources or clandestine programs like drone strikes or government eavesdropping.

It is a crime to store Top Secret intelligence anywhere other than government networks; regardless of whether or not Clinton believed her server to be more secure. Furthermore, SAP data is so secretive, the U.S. government often times denies the existence of these projects.

Now that the State Department has distanced itself from Clinton’s need for convenience, her “intent” becomes the issue that makes Bernie Sanders the clear front-runner. Delegate count won’t save Clinton when the FBI recommends indictments, and every legal defense of Clinton’s emails rested upon her convenience narrative.

The “high bar” that defenders of Hillary Clinton cite was just lowered to a level indicating she intentionally used a private server. This intent correlates to legal consequences. Intent means a deliberate act, and this deliberate act can’t be explained as “convenience.”

The Espionage Act states that whoever is “entrusted” with state secrets must ensure this data isn’t “removed from its proper place of custody” and that “gross negligence” isn’t a defense:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Yes, Clinton’s 22 Top Secret emails were “illegally removed from its proper place.”

Also, how did Brian Pagliano transfer this intelligence from secure State Department networks, onto a private server, without authority or documentation from State?

Who helped Pagliano transfer this data?

The recent State Department report states there’s no documentation approving Clinton’s server.

This intentional need to circumvent U.S. government networks correlates to breaking State Department guidelines. As written in the Inspector General’s report, “At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service.”

Since there’s no record at State pertaining to anyone authorizing Clinton’s email server, Bernie Sanders must be considered the Democratic front-runner; regardless of delegate count. If you think this is hyperbole, just read a Washington Post article titled Clinton’s inexcusable, willful disregard for the rules:"

[kentuck]

15. Should all emails of all elected officials be made public, personal or official?

Including the President, Congressmen, and Senators, whether or not they are running for President?

Or should personal emails be treated differently?

[unc70]

16. Newsweek article not excellent

That article has been discussed at length here at DU. Not only is it not excellent, it is outright wrong on key elements and is contradicted explicitly by clear statements in the IG report. That article seems based too much on Clinton talking points, almost as if the writer had just skimmed the report and was writing quickly trying to meet a deadline.

[CajunBlazer]

17. Have you read all 749 pages of the Inspector General's report?

i'm betting that you have not; the writer has. Who am I to believe, you or an objective journalist. as best I can tail, you're only qualifications are that you have access to the Internet. . Iso in case you haven't noticed, that's a rhetorical question vas you haven't noticed, that was a rhetorical question.

[unc70]

37. What I've read doesn't matter, but it is not 749 pages

Last edited Sun May 29, 2016, 09:00 PM - Edit history (1)

The Newsweek article has some problems. It doesn't matter how the author got his information if his version is contradicted by the IG report and by other original sources.

A couple of the errors are stated in other posts in this thread. I don't believe the NW article is horrid, but it is far from excellent.

BTW "as best I can tail, you're only qualification" should read "as best I can tell, your only qualification". Relax, this is only an online blog.

As for the report, the Newsweek article refers to it as 79 pages. (Page count can vary slightly depending on how one counts the cover pages.) I have read all the pages in the report, including footnotes and many of the referenced documents. I don't have the government security credentials of some at DU, but I am a senior professional with over 40 years experience with security coming from the technology side. But understanding the DS-IG report does not require special skills; almost anyone can read and understand. That is why it is so devastating.

If you actually have a link to a 749-page IG document, I would appreciate a link.

[NWCorona]

22. Some corrections.

"The server which Hillary Clinton used was installed by a State Department employee from their IT organization. "

Brian was Hillary's 2008 campaign IT/webmaster. He was then politically appointed to his position at State and he wasn't qualified for the position.


"Needless to say no one but the person(s) who wrote those regulations and the Inspector General have read them. The State Departments IT system is so antiquated that for years most State Departments have used their own email accounts to do business."

This is moot as Hillary failed to seek clarification or approval as noted in the OIG report. Also Hillary had an budget to improve the systems at the State Dept but failed to do so. As a result the state department was worse off after she left.

"While a few of thousands of Hillary’s emails classified retroactively, Hillarary’s server was used only for unclassified emails. "

While it is true that a majority of Hillary's emails are retroactively classified there's still plenty that were born classified.

"according to the security logs of the server there were hacking attempts on Hillary server, but none of them were successful"

Even Mark Toner says that the State Dept can't verify that Hillary's server wasn't hacked. Also the logs provided is only for the time that Brian maintained the server.

[yallerdawg]

39. Hillary was Secretary of State.

If the material originated from her and State, it was not classified as is her official prerogative.

Everybody acts as if Hillary was just a cubicle drone low-level subordinate having her life managed by IT geeks.

You do know this is all rightwing-generated Benghazi Committee BS, right?

It is a shame when our side takes the bait!

[NWCorona]

40. It didn't come from the state department. That's the problem Hillary is facing

[yallerdawg]

42. Dianne Feinstein has reported any "classified" material...

did not come from Hillary.

But Senator Feinstein is a Democratic source. Is that OK on DU?

[NWCorona]

46. I didn't say it came from Hillary. It was on her server tho

[pmorlan1]

26. Here's a random thought

At this point, while there is some evidence, we don't know for sure if her server was successfully hacked (FBI will confirm). If it was hacked that could be how they got into the governments servers piggybacking on her email sent to others from her hacked server.

[B Calm]

62. Bingo! +1

[DonCoquixote]

29. You make some point, but I have some rebuttals

NO, I do not think this scandal is a big as the desperate GOP would make it, however, if we attempt to evade obvious facts, we will look like we are hiding, and of course, the attempts to deny something often wind up worse than the actual offense (something Hillary should have learned after helping Bill recover from HIS mistakes.)

If she wanted a private server, it was dumb to put it in her house. She could have personally requested the best minds in Silicon Valley to make a "personal server" that was literally the cutting edge, something outright ridiculous, a veritable "moon shot" of security. Yes, the GOP would have howled, but what could they have said? "Oh, hey GOP, do you WANT the Chinese or Iranians to troll Hillary's email?" She would have been sympathetic, indeed, the whole thing could have been a publicity stunt to "raise awareness" of cyber attacks, the sort of public service message that every politician has been cutting for 20 years.

You think Microsoft and others would not have pulled out all the stops so that they could film that coveted super bowl commercial "When Hillary wanted her email safe, she came to us." They could have made a server that was an Iron Tower of Doom, something to scare off every hacker from Johnny in his basement to Al-Qaida and Isis.

But no, she played it private, and tried keeping it hidden in her basement like something out of a bad horror novel. Someone who has been fighting the GOP for years should know better to to give them ammo. No I do not think what she did was illegal, especially as the laws on Cyberspace are so murky that even the record companies can't stop their records from being downloaded, and toothless enough that the hackers outside of North America frankly do not have to give a damn. However, it was foolish, which is bad for someone whose main selling point is experience and wisdom.

and before people start howling the mind numbing chants of "YoujusthateHillary" let me say I know as of now I need her to win, because until such time as this nation rewrites it's laws, either slot a or slot B wins. However, Hillary has an entourage of people whose whole purpose is to pull her this way and that, feed her whatever she needs to keep the show going, and who know that if Hillary the Rock Star falls, they will have their fat paychecks anyway. Giving someone everything they want and none of what they need is a surefire recipe for tragedy, and if Hill's entourage manage to crash her again, we know they will just be hired for the Debbie Wasserman Schultz campaign in 2020..

[democrattotheend]

41. Some of the federal government technology rules are ridiculous

For example, when I interned briefly for the government during law school, I was told that the best features of WestlawNext, such as being able to save research into folders, had been disabled because "we're not allowed to store anything in the cloud." Nobody could explain to me what security risk was posed by bookmarking cases. And that wasn't the only ridiculous restriction they had.

I am not saying it's ok to break the law, but to the extent she was trying to get around arcane rules and barriers, I get it. I don't think she actually compromised national security. What bothers me is that it seems she also did certain things to evade public records requirements, and that to me is much more troubling.

[CajunBlazer]

49. The restrictions on saving government data in a cloud environment are still in place

And I can tell you from personal experience that the government does not allow their data to be in any server environment where other customer data is kept no matter how effective they measures are taken to keep the data is separate. That means that companies under contract with the government must keep government data in bare metal servers which is an antiquated method doing things into days technological environment.

Bureaucrats are excellent writing rules book or terrible in revising those rules when they become obsolete.

And would you really want the Secretary of State to spend her first few months on the job reading all the government regulations pertaining to her department contained in 16 thick volumes that probably would filll most bookshelves.

Here's the bottom line she didn't break any laws and no government data, clasifiied or otherwise, otherwise, was compromised. And by the way it was her freaking department she can change the rules if you so chooses.

[democrattotheend]

66. To the extent her goal was to get around antiquated bureaucracy, it doesn't bother me

To the extent she was trying to evade public records obligations and shield official business from Congressional or FOIA oversight, that bothers me a lot.

[CajunBlazer]

50. Here's the bottom line folks:

Here's the bottom line she didn't break any laws and no government data, clasifiied or otherwise, otherwise, was compromised. And by the way it was her freaking department she can change the rules if you so chooses. Is only one person that she has to answer to and that was President Obama, and I haven't heard him complain yet.

[KeepItReal]

51. Your first sentence is a lie. That dude was appointed later. Not a State IT employee.

As a matter of fact, State Department IT was like "who is this guy?" and rightfully so.

Pagliano was not a government employee before he built that sever for Hillary. He probably wasn't even qualified to hold a real IT job at State.

And folks wonder why Clinton has record untrustworthy polling.

Shit like this is Exhibit A.

[CajunBlazer]

52. Was he competent?

The answer is yes, very much so. that's all you need to know.

[KeepItReal]

53. Turning off a server to prevent a hack is competence?

Intrusions don't stop because you rebooted a machine.

You don't know shit about technology or are too partisan or too invested in spouting propaganda to care.

Again you lied about him being a State Department IT before he built that janky Windows server.

Retract or keep your lies to yourself.

[CajunBlazer]

55. It stopped that attempt didn't it

If you're the IT professional that you claim to be you know that forensic investigation of the server logs will allow a competent investigator to detech suceessful intrusions. Professionals have examined Clinton's server and have determined that no successful intrusions occurred. So spouting bullshit!

And when somebody starts a sentence with the words "It is my understanding..." One can hardly term the remaining of that sentence a "lie".

You are in fact exhibiting the very tendencies that you are accusing others of having. Your obvious hatred of Hillary Clinton is coloring your thought processes.

[KeepItReal]

60. Your lie still stands.

Last edited Mon May 30, 2016, 01:41 AM - Edit history (1)

And if the server was never compromised, why was Clinton IT person advising her staff to "not email anything sensitive"?

Either you're hacked or you're not. You'd only stop sending sensitive emails if you had reason to believe unauthorized people had access to your email communications.

Hackers attempted to access Clinton’s server on Jan. 9, 2011, and a phishing email message was sent to Clinton on May 13, 2011, that contained a suspicious link. Both attempted breaches should have been reported. “However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department,” the report said. http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/ig-report-on-clintons-emails/

[bobbobbins01]

56. You have most of it completely wrong.

1) The person doing the install did not use the same security measures as the state department. The server didn't even have a security certificate for the first few months.

2) Ignorance of the law and isn't an excuse, and many of them were put in place while Hillary was in office, so she would have been aware of them.

3) Much of the classified information was classified at the time it was sent, including names of agents in the field. Blumenthal and Clinton traded current classified information on the server on several occasions.

4) It is almost certain she was hacked by at least Guccifer(he had bill clintons doodles, correctly identified the server as hosting several different web addresses, etc.), and probably several more organizations, as stated by many security experts.

[CajunBlazer]

57. BS

[840high]

59. Yes - your posts are.

[Mnpaul]

63. What do you expect

from someone who hasn't read the report? They keep claiming it has +700 pages.