HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Here's what you need to k...

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:47 PM

Here's what you need to know about the 7 Clinton emails ...

Last edited Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:55 PM - Edit history (2)

...which the State Department is withholding due to classification issues.

1) There was no government rule which prevented Hillary from setting up and using a private email server to handle her government emails.

2) Other State Departments heads including Colon Powell used the exact same set up. I don't hear the Republicans complaining about him.

3) Hillary's server was used to send and receive messages to and from other government employees in the State Department and her personal emails as well.

4) Any official State Department emails set to or received from Hillary's server were also maintained the State Department's government servers - therefore there is a government record of each and every one.

5) Investigations determined that Hillary's server had the exact same security protections required on all State Department government servers.

6) Investigation have also concluded that that there was no security breaches of Hillary's server - yes IT security experts can determine if such a breach occurred.

7) Because an email server is most vulnerable to security breaches cause by user error - such as opening a document on a fake email which releases a virus which allows 0the server to be hacked - the less people having access to a server, the more secure it is. So Hillary's server was probably more secure than the State Department's email machines. (Note: There have been several reports of government servers being hacked and very sensitive data being lost. This did not happen on Hillary's server.)

9) The 7 emails in question were not classified when they were sent and received.

9) The State Department is not withholding the 7 emails because they believe they that the emails should be classified; it is another government agency that is claiming that they should be classified. It is a well known fact that there is a propensity in many government agencies to over classify data - often because the information in question may make the the agency look bad if it was ever publicized. It is their way of making sure that the public never knows that they screwed up. I am not saying that is what is going on here, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised me if it were the case because that is often a prime reason why different agencies disagree on information classification.

10) The State Department is not saying that they will never distribute the emails. They are saying that they are withholding them for now until they can do their own investigation as to whether the emails should be classified.

Bottom line: The entire affair was totally blown out of proportion by Republican seeking political advantage. If Democrats are repeating Republicans talking points on this issue, they should be ashamed of themselves.

And yes, I am an IT professional who knows what he is talking about when it comes to cyber security.

157 replies, 8177 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 157 replies Author Time Post
Reply Here's what you need to know about the 7 Clinton emails ... (Original post)
CajunBlazer Jan 2016 OP
NurseJackie Jan 2016 #1
CajunBlazer Jan 2016 #3
Ned_Devine Jan 2016 #60
CajunBlazer Jan 2016 #81
Ned_Devine Jan 2016 #84
LiberalArkie Jan 2016 #138
Ned_Devine Jan 2016 #139
blue neen Jan 2016 #141
Ned_Devine Jan 2016 #143
blue neen Jan 2016 #146
Ned_Devine Jan 2016 #147
Plucketeer Jan 2016 #94
stonecutter357 Jan 2016 #2
CajunBlazer Jan 2016 #6
Iliyah Jan 2016 #4
Skwmom Jan 2016 #25
Old Codger Jan 2016 #89
mcar Jan 2016 #5
jfern Jan 2016 #7
CajunBlazer Jan 2016 #21
elias49 Jan 2016 #50
riversedge Jan 2016 #56
senz Jan 2016 #23
erronis Jan 2016 #86
A Simple Game Jan 2016 #99
Jesus Malverde Jan 2016 #134
SheilaT Jan 2016 #8
CajunBlazer Jan 2016 #12
SheilaT Jan 2016 #27
A Simple Game Jan 2016 #98
DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2016 #150
mhatrw Jan 2016 #9
CajunBlazer Jan 2016 #17
madamesilverspurs Jan 2016 #10
DemocratSinceBirth Jan 2016 #28
retrowire Jan 2016 #65
DemocratSinceBirth Jan 2016 #80
retrowire Jan 2016 #85
CajunBlazer Jan 2016 #154
jeff47 Jan 2016 #128
senz Jan 2016 #11
CajunBlazer Jan 2016 #18
senz Jan 2016 #119
NCTraveler Jan 2016 #13
askew Jan 2016 #45
NCTraveler Jan 2016 #47
askew Jan 2016 #51
NCTraveler Jan 2016 #54
quickesst Jan 2016 #57
askew Jan 2016 #72
quickesst Jan 2016 #125
John Poet Jan 2016 #140
libdem4life Jan 2016 #14
CajunBlazer Jan 2016 #19
libdem4life Jan 2016 #24
Hekate Jan 2016 #36
libdem4life Jan 2016 #41
Duval Jan 2016 #63
libdem4life Jan 2016 #67
cali Jan 2016 #15
AtomicKitten Jan 2016 #16
CajunBlazer Jan 2016 #20
AtomicKitten Jan 2016 #22
morningfog Jan 2016 #29
Hekate Jan 2016 #34
CajunBlazer Jan 2016 #35
morningfog Jan 2016 #39
CajunBlazer Jan 2016 #88
morningfog Jan 2016 #104
askew Jan 2016 #43
CajunBlazer Jan 2016 #37
libdem4life Jan 2016 #26
Vinca Jan 2016 #40
AtomicKitten Jan 2016 #135
Z_California Jan 2016 #30
Hekate Jan 2016 #32
Hekate Jan 2016 #31
Dems to Win Jan 2016 #33
CajunBlazer Jan 2016 #48
morningfog Jan 2016 #120
Vinca Jan 2016 #38
askew Jan 2016 #42
Sivart Jan 2016 #44
askew Jan 2016 #46
CajunBlazer Jan 2016 #49
askew Jan 2016 #52
dorkzilla Jan 2016 #101
Jesus Malverde Jan 2016 #137
DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2016 #151
CajunBlazer Jan 2016 #132
uponit7771 Jan 2016 #55
Gidney N Cloyd Jan 2016 #59
askew Jan 2016 #66
Gidney N Cloyd Jan 2016 #122
askew Jan 2016 #124
Jarqui Jan 2016 #61
askew Jan 2016 #68
CajunBlazer Jan 2016 #74
Loudestlib Jan 2016 #77
Jarqui Jan 2016 #91
catnhatnh Jan 2016 #126
retrowire Jan 2016 #69
Autumn Jan 2016 #110
randys1 Jan 2016 #53
DesertRat Jan 2016 #58
Mbrow Jan 2016 #62
passiveporcupine Jan 2016 #64
dorkzilla Jan 2016 #106
ejbr Jan 2016 #70
azurnoir Jan 2016 #71
angrychair Jan 2016 #73
CajunBlazer Jan 2016 #100
Maedhros Jan 2016 #75
questionseverything Jan 2016 #153
TheBlackAdder Jan 2016 #76
jeff47 Jan 2016 #130
ghostsinthemachine Jan 2016 #78
still_one Jan 2016 #79
Paladin Jan 2016 #95
jeff47 Jan 2016 #131
Loudestlib Jan 2016 #82
fbc Jan 2016 #83
Separation Jan 2016 #87
asuhornets Jan 2016 #90
MariaThinks Jan 2016 #92
Lage Nom Ai Jan 2016 #93
magical thyme Jan 2016 #96
SoapBox Jan 2016 #105
Bluenorthwest Jan 2016 #97
CajunBlazer Jan 2016 #107
MyNameGoesHere Jan 2016 #102
daybranch Jan 2016 #103
CajunBlazer Jan 2016 #111
840high Jan 2016 #112
Major Nikon Jan 2016 #108
Tarc Jan 2016 #109
Major Nikon Jan 2016 #117
Empowerer Jan 2016 #113
CajunBlazer Jan 2016 #114
Major Nikon Jan 2016 #123
CajunBlazer Jan 2016 #133
Motown_Johnny Jan 2016 #115
hopemountain Jan 2016 #116
lunamagica Jan 2016 #118
Bleacher Creature Jan 2016 #121
jeff47 Jan 2016 #127
Jesus Malverde Jan 2016 #136
DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2016 #152
Avalux Jan 2016 #129
cherokeeprogressive Jan 2016 #142
jillan Jan 2016 #144
Arazi Jan 2016 #145
Sheepshank Jan 2016 #148
Surya Gayatri Jan 2016 #149
DesertRat Jan 2016 #155
RBInMaine Jan 2016 #156
Vattel Jan 2016 #157

Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:51 PM

1. Thank you ...

And yes, I am an IT professional who knows what he is talking about when it comes to cyber security.

As is my husband, and his comments are almost identical to yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:54 PM

3. Jackie, I hope that is not your union that is spending all of that money on Bernie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:24 PM

60. She would have to be a real nurse for that. It's from a tv show

 

...and what's wrong with the nurse's union supporting Bernie? My girlfriend is an RN and is a strong supporter of Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ned_Devine (Reply #60)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:56 PM

81. There are 3,131,003 registered nurses in the United States

The National Nurses United union represents only 185,00 registered nurses or about 6% of them. And I am willing to bet that some of the union members would object to their money being used to support Bernie. Not impressed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #81)


Response to Ned_Devine (Reply #84)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:57 PM

138. Results :

On Fri Jan 29, 2016, 09:48 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I'll have to let them know you're not impressed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1093078

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Sexist, rude, and inappropriate still apply even if the slurs are made in a musical video. "So hit the fucking road and piss up a rope." And then, "On your knees you big bootied bitch, start sucking." Oh, and there's more. Listen to the song. This is an extremely childish and offensive way to state a simple disagreement with someone. It doesn't belong on DU.
Thank you.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jan 29, 2016, 09:56 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hide denied.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Never seen anyone try so hard to get their fifth hide.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What's wrong with Ween?

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #138)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:06 AM

139. It's a great song. The lyrics are crude, but the title is perfect

 

Trying to get my fifth hide? Are you keeping count, fucking weirdo juror #5?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ned_Devine (Reply #139)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:37 AM

141. It's a perfect song if you're intentionally trying to be rude and misogynistic to someone else.

Piss Up a Rope
Ween


"My dinner's on fire
While she watches TV
And if you've ever wondered
What it's like to be me
She takes all my money
And leaves me no smokes
Yells at my buddies
And insults my folks
I'm breakin' my back doin' the best that I can
She's got time for the dog and none for her man
And I'm no dope
But I can't cope
So hit the fuckin' road and piss up a rope"

"You can
Piss up a rope
And you can put on your shoes
Hit the road get truckin'
Pack your bag
I don't need the ag
On your knees you big, booty bitch start suckin'
You ride my ass
Like a horse in a saddle
Now you're up shits creek
With a turd for a paddle
And I can't cope
Piss up a rope"

"Uh you can piss up a rope
And feel the pissy dribble
You can piss up a rope
And watch me giggle
For the last 6 months
I been packin' your bag
You can wash my balls
With a warm, wet rag
Till my balls feel smooth
And soft like silk
I'm sick of your mouth
And your 2 percent milk
And I'm no dope
But I've lost all hope
So hit the fuckin' road and
Piss up a rope"

"You can
Piss up a rope
And you can put on your shoes
Hit the road get truckin'
Pack your bag
I don't need the ag
On your knees you big, booty bitch start suckin'
You ride my ass
Like a horse in a saddle
Now you're up shits creek
With a turd for a paddle
And I can't cope
Piss up a rope"

"You can
Piss up a rope
And you can put on your shoes
Hit the road get truckin'
Pack your bag
I don't need the ag
On your knees you big, booty bitch start suckin'
You ride my ass
Like a horse in a saddle
Now you're up shits creek
With a turd for a paddle
And I can't cope
Piss up a rope"

Yep, right up there with Triumph, the Insult Dog material. You seem to be proud of yourself for it, but you shouldn't be. You've made yourself look bad, you've made DU look bad, and, most importantly, you've made the candidate you claim to support look bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blue neen (Reply #141)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:42 AM

143. Instead of writing down the lyrics,

 

you can just take a cue from the song title. That was the intention. The fact that someone wrote a song with that title just seemed perfect. Most of the lyrics don't suit me and the way I am, but there are times when I'd like to tell folks to piss up a rope and this was one of those times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ned_Devine (Reply #143)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:46 AM

146. You posted the whole song.

The intention was for everyone to hear the rude things you wanted them to hear.

There are times I'd like to tell folks worse than "piss up a rope", but I don't. It serves no good purpose.

It's not okay, and will not be okay--even though you got away with it.

Over and out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blue neen (Reply #146)


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #81)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:12 PM

94. And with that many nurses in the US

 

you can make book that there's some who're sending money to various whack jobs on the GOP side!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:54 PM

2. K&R!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stonecutter357 (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:57 PM

6. Thanks for the kick...

Please help keep the post in view on the front page because I sure that there are others who would like to see it disappear in the back pages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:55 PM

4. All of that is correct but it still won't stop the propaganda corporate media

machine. They are very afraid of HRC winning the WH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iliyah (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:28 PM

25. Oh, that's another lie they thing this propaganda will support? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iliyah (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:06 PM

89. Frightened shitless

 

Would be how I describe how I feel about another clinton in the white house as anything more than a visitor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:55 PM

5. K&R

for sanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:57 PM

7. Let's see

1. It's generally frowned upon to do company business on a private e-mail account even when there's no classified information. Classified information on your own email server is absolutely not allowed.

2. Colin Powell said he used a secure system for classified information

3. Nope, there are plenty of e-mails to non government employees such as Sidney Blumenthal

4. What security protections?

5. It can be very hard to prove such a thing, and basically impossible to prove no one evedropped on the beyond top secret classified information when it was sent unecrypted plain text over the standard email protocol through the Internet

6. A lone server can still be hacked, and there's the concern of plaintext email sent via the Internet

7. As a creator of classified information, she was trained to know that information she created is classified from the moment of creation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jfern (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:25 PM

21. I'll anser every point you made later - I don't hve time right now.

But trust me, you won't be disappointed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #21)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:03 PM

50. You have an inside line on the State Dept,

 

which you said in your OP was not being released by State?
Important person, for sure! I await, with bated breath, for you to explain everything. When you have the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elias49 (Reply #50)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:18 PM

56. I am glad he has offered to respond later

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jfern (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:26 PM

23. ^^^ This ^^^

 

Thank you, jfern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jfern (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:04 PM

86. +1 - also vouching for your counterpoints, as an IT/security bod.

1. Regular employees get shit-canned if they don't follow company/agency procedures. I worked at various gov't agencies and I would not want to risk my employment by being stupid. This may not apply to "political appointees".

2. Has an audit been done? If so, by whom? Can we see the results? No, no, no. I thought so.

3. It's always follow-the-money; or why is this being done? It's only being done (by Powell or Clinton) because they want to have "conversations" outside of monitored channels. And one could ask (as a taxpayer) why the SoS needs to conduct official business outside of these channels. If they are supposedly only to other members of the department (is Sidney an employee?), then why not use the official channel. Again, follow the money.

4. I don't really think so. There is some stipulation in some rule that says you should CC the official channel. Like, really? Can you prove that (@CajunBlazer)?

5. Agree. You can't prove a lack of a security violation by saying you haven't found one. The biggest problem is that these emails were sent in clear-text over easily intercepted networks (no spy agencies needed.)

6. And since the server was conveniently wiped, we'll probably never know what gremlins were enjoying their parasitic feast therein. Perhaps the NSA (the world's backup agency) could shed some light...

7. That's the gotcha. She's only a politician - she can't be bothered about the stuff that the rest of us have to grapple with - security, privacy, access,,,



Maybe Colin Powell also misused his

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jfern (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:20 PM

99. A much more accurate list in my opinion. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jfern (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:19 PM

134. To reiterate number 6 and it's the biggie...

All email is sent as clear text unless it's on a secure network that uses encryption. By using a "private" server she exposed national security secrets and state department business to all the machines that relayed her mail. Just look at the headers to any email you have received and note it's handled by many machines in transit. Russians, the NSA, Chinese, the mossad, or run of the mill hackers could have read these emails in transit.

Any "IT expert" would know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:59 PM

8. I don't know very much about IT

 

and I can't begin to figure out how important this email thing is, but in the end, is this country extremely fortunate that her server wasn't hacked? Just dumb luck that it apparently didn't occur to anyone that she was using a personal server for classified stuff?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:06 PM

12. Actually Hillary's server had less chance of being hacked....

.... the State Department's email servers for the reasons I explained. It had the same exact security protections and was accessed by only one person, not thousands. Thousands of people can make a lot more security mistakes than one person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #12)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:30 PM

27. But if someone out there had caught on

 

to the existence of her server, wouldn't it have been easy to hack? I'm still guessing we're awfully lucky in that regard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #12)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:19 PM

98. There must be a lot of misinformation going around. I read the other day that

her staff used the server too. I also read a while ago that the brain that set up the server never changed the default passwords.

Please research these issues and get back to us please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:50 PM

150. Actually, I AM a data security professional, and you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:01 PM

9. LOL. But repeating Republican talking points against programs the vast majority

of Democrats support, such as single payer healthcare, well, that's a whole 'nother ball of Wall Street fundraisers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mhatrw (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:18 PM

17. Don't try to change the subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:03 PM

10. PLEASE

consider posting this to all the threads asserting Clinton's electoral demise due to emails.

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madamesilverspurs (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:31 PM

28. It wouldn't do a bit of good, my friend.

No minds are ever changed here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #28)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:39 PM

65. Ye of little faith.

This OP is actually a good one and it's changed my mind somewhat.


EDIT: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1092544

Post 42 actually makes good points.

Secondly, I kind of always use this bit of logic... If this weren't such a big deal and everything was fine now, wouldn't the FBI have finished today like they said they would and closed the case, Hillary looking great at the end? Welp, they didn't and they're still investigating...

Same reason I don't believe Bernie "stole data" from Hillary. If he had, then it would still be an issue to the DNC. But clearly, it didn't stick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #65)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:55 PM

80. If it did, my friend, I literally couldn't be more happy then to be wrong.

I believe the whole private server e-mail/server issue does demonstrate an error in judgement but I am unwilling to attribute it to malice nor do I think it is disqualifying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #80)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:58 PM

85. I don't think malice is at hand either.

But I do think security matters so it is concerning. It's not my primary reason for not voting Hillary, far from it. But really, it's moreso something that I just want some damn clarity on. It's messy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #85)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 05:58 PM

154. What security matters - it had now useful information - and regardless it wasn't hacked

No harm, no foul!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madamesilverspurs (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:17 PM

128. You really don't want that. This post demonstrates the poster does not or should not work in IT. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:05 PM

11. Twenty-two (22) top secrect emails!

 

Please update your title?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #11)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:19 PM

18. Wrong, it is 7 emails consisting of multiple pages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #18)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 09:14 PM

119. 7 email chains. 22 emails. Twenty-two emails.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:11 PM

13. Your Bottom Line segment covers it.

 

This is a right wing attack based completely in misconception. It might have a small effect on LIV's in the general. Very small. Clinton has her support lined up for Iowa and they have seen these smears for decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:52 PM

45. The FBI, IG, and State Dept are not involved in a rightwing conspiracy to bring down Hillary.

And you do your candidate no favors when you say that. It makes you sound crazy.

The WH has even had to come out and correct lies Hillary's team has told on this email mess and they aren't part of the VRW smear machine either.

Hillary exercised at best horrible judgment in deciding to use a private server. At worst, she is going to face charges for mishandling classified material. That's for the FBI and DOJ to decide. But, this is a serious matter and voters should be concerned that Hillary's judgment is so poor that she couldn't even handle email properly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #45)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:58 PM

47. I have no problem with the actions of...

 

The FBI, AG, or the State Dept. One of them has always had a conservative bent, the other two are dramatically better. That being said, I have no problem with what they have done to this point. I'm not sure where you got that from.

It's the horrid right wing spin that is being made from the facts known that I'm talking about. The State Dept is doing its job. It's great to have an excellent functioning State Department since Bush left office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #47)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:06 PM

51. Well, it's quite clear that Hillary left behind a giant mess for Kerry to clean-up at State

And State is still trying to clean it up. I can't say her handling of State or the email mess shows that she has the judgment or management skills to be president.

There is no spin on what is happening right now. The facts are there is a lot of classified material on Hillary's server. We can argue about whether or not it was marked classified or not (even though that is irrelevant) or if it was born classified (which much of it was). But, the facts remain that Hillary had a non-secure email server in her home that had classified material on it and that was backed up by companies without the proper security clearance to handle that material. There is a very good case to make for her being charged with mishandling classified materials. People have been charged with that with much less evidence than they have against Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #51)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:12 PM

54. I have a different view of how the State Dept is doing.

 

I do think Kerry is fantastic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #45)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:19 PM

57. Well....

As far as I can tell, no one said the FBI, IG, and the state dept were involved in a rightwing conspiracy. It is clear that it is the right-wing of the replug party taking advantage of said entities findings, skewing the shit out of it just to make her look bad. It is amazing to me how many on the left are embracing it. Who could ask for better allies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quickesst (Reply #57)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:43 PM

72. There's nothing to skew.

She used a private email server in her home in direct defiance of her boss (the president)'s directive. She didn't follow proper security protocol with the server. She failed to make sure all records were turned over to State in a timely manner. She used a Blackberry that wasn't issued by State Dept and wasn't secure as well as an iPad which was against State guidelines to send government email. There is multiple pieces of classified information on her unsecured email server that was sent and received on unsecure devices.

There is no need to spin that. It is horrible all on it's own. Hillary's team can try to spin it as no big deal but no one outside of her diehard supporters believes that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #72)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:07 PM

125. Believe me...

... This won't be much ado about nothing, but it will be much ado about a little.
I don't know why we're arguing, since we both agree that there is a contingency on the left that is aiding the Republicans in their witch hunt against Hillary You, by ignoring the OP, and me, by saying it straight up, and you still did not address my original point, which was that no one is accusing those organizations of a right wing conspiracy. Some of them may be a little over zealous in doing their due diligence, but let me make myself clear when I say it is my opinion that it is the Republicans, along with the help of some on the left that is involved in this conspiracy. The thing about right wing conspiracies against Hillary Clinton is that they are transparent, and not covert in the least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:15 AM

140. The FBI does not assign 150 agents to investigate a "smear".

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:12 PM

14. This seems to infer that we know all there is to know. We don't. We know what "they"

 

have chosen to tell us. Rather than acting like FBI cyber security experts, perhaps we should wait until it's sorted out. GIGO We don't know yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:21 PM

19. Oh well, I guess that all of those Republican Congressional investigations were a ...

... waste of money.

Maybe, the Republicans are withholding information to protect Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #19)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:27 PM

24. Most of them are...you're surprised? And do I believe that the 1% protects its own?

 

Absolutely. The bickering is just a game they play...cash in when they can, back away when they should. Round and round it goes.

The Party System is mostly for the Peons...I keep thinking of Jonathon Livingston Seagull...worth a read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #24)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:39 PM

36. That's just nuts. The RW has been after both Clintons since Arkansas days...

...and they sure as hell were not "1%ers" then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #36)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:44 PM

41. I agree. But that was then...this is now. Hard to go back to Hope, AR to dispense

 

with the obvious. In fact, you make my point. Who made them 1%ers? Why, even a charitable Global Foundation. They've come a long way and have A Lot of Money and Questionable Things that are included.

That's not chicken feed or nuts. It's massive wealth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #24)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:37 PM

63. One of my favorite books! Plus, I agree with your post.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duval (Reply #63)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:39 PM

67. Thanks. I think that makes us fairly old?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:14 PM

15. Here's what YOU need to know

 

This is a fucking huge liability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:17 PM

16. "I did nothing wrong."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:24 PM

20. You can't respond to post you show us a picture of a little dog as if...

that negates everything I wrote. Very sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:25 PM

22. The OP is a steaming pile of excuses.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #22)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:31 PM

29. I stopped reading at numbers 3, 4 and (the second)4

 

because the OP is factually wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #29)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:37 PM

34. The OP is factually correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #29)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:37 PM

35. Then tell everyone why it is wrong

And please explain you qualifications for saying it is wrong - otherwise people might think that you are just blowing smoke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #35)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:41 PM

39. It was not used only to communicate with other

 

State employees. That's really the whole issue. Duh! Number 3 is flat wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #39)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:05 PM

88. Please don't distort what I wrote

I said said that all emails used to conduct State Department business also existed on other government servers so they were preserved. The whole reason why Hillary set up the secure server was so she could use one email account for her State Department and personal emails.

Of course when Hillary sent an email to Bill to pick up some bread on the way home, that email would not be on a government server. Nor is there a need to capture the contents of such an email

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #88)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:29 PM

104. That's not what you wrote. No sense in lying.

 

We can all read. Like I said, I stopped at your 3, because it was dead wrong. Even if you claim you know IT, which is dubious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #29)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:49 PM

43. Every one of those items is factually wrong.

I am not sure the OP will bother to respond but I laid out all the reasons they were wrong in a post below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #22)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:40 PM

37. I'm guessing that you didn't like my post

That's okay, I'm open for a discussion. Why don't we start with you telling me what part of my post was incorrect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:29 PM

26. Well I responded, and I stand firmly behind this innocent puppy.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:42 PM

40. The puppy is absolutely adorable and you make a good point with the photo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #40)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:22 PM

135. he's way too cute to be mad at him

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:32 PM

30. Bottom Line

The sooner we know the results of the FBI investigation, the better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Z_California (Reply #30)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:37 PM

32. The wingers just keep investigating. Every time they hit a dead end, they start a new one. Ken Starr

Kenneth Starr should be making a reappearance any time now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:35 PM

31. Thanks for truth and facts, Cajun. Alas, there is no known cure for Clinton Derangement Syndrome....

Obamacare can provide referrals, but those suffering from this sad ailment must be willing to change, and none seem able to.

So sad, so sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:37 PM

33. Your point #3 is simply false

 

She had email correspondence with Sidney Blumenthal, Lanny Davis, other non State employees.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/state-dept-releases-new-tranche-of-hillary-clintons-emails-119624

Hillary also had lots of correspondence with Chelsea about her wedding using that server.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dems to Win (Reply #33)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:59 PM

48. Sidney Blumenthall is long time friend of Clinton

One of the reasons she set up the private sever with all of the same security provisions as the state department server so she could use the same email account for work and private email messages. Blumenthall could send her personal email the same as Bill and Chelsea could.

As you say Blumenthall is a civilian who sought to stay relevant by given Hillary all kinds of unsolicited advice. As a civilian he absolutely had access to no classified information. This is like some old friend of yours trying to tell you how to do your job. Had he sent the same messages to Hillary's private email account no one would have batted an eye. As I said copies of all official State Department business emails are available on government servers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #48)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 09:29 PM

120. That is not what you fucking said. Why lie?

 

We can see you are lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:40 PM

38. If all of this is true, the FBI needs to make an immediate statement clearing her of any wrongdoing.

She may be totally innocent in this, but the implications are solid gold for any opponent she might face if she's the general election candidate. Would you vote for a president who might be indicted? That will be the talking point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:48 PM

42. Every one of those 7 items is wrong.

Every single one of them.

1. President Obama issued an explicit directive to not use personal email for government work. Hillary violated that directive and never told the WH what she was doing. There is also regulations requiring the DHS to be notified of any outside server being used for government work. She failed to do that. She was also expressly forbidden from using Apple products (iPad and iPhone) by State Dept's IT and legal multiple times and she used both anyway in violation with State Dept security regulations. These rules were so serious that President Obama was not allowed to keep an iPhone after elected.

2. Colin Powell did not have the same set-up. He didn't have a personal server that only he had access to in his home without the proper security on it. He also didn't give his top aides email accounts on these same servers. He also did not go against his president's explicit instructions and keep a private server.

3 & 4. This one is so wrong that I don't know where to start. Nothing was backed up from Hillary's server to the State Dept. server. If a State Dept employee used a .gov email address, then that email exchange was backed up. However, State's system would not be able to pull that email for FOIA requests because it wasn't stored under Hillary's name. Also, Hillary gave her top aides emails on her private server so any communication between them and Hillary was not captured at all on the State's system. Also, most of Hillary's problematic emails were with individuals outside of State. State's system had no way of capturing those emails. In one case, we only found out about the email exchange from the Benghazi committee's subpoena of Sydney Blumenthal's email. Hillary had deleted her end of the conversation from her private email server but Blumenthal turned over his to the committee.

5. There has not been a complete investigation yet of this but her IT company admitted that she went at least 3 months without any protection on her server. It was discussed in emails with her staffers that have been FOIA'd. The FBI investigation will be able to tell us more about secure her server really was.

6. Again, until the FBI investigation is completed we have no way of knowing how secure her system was. However, her email system was naked without any protection on it for 3 months according to her IT company. She also involved multiple companies that were not cleared to handle classified information in housing/maintaining her server. So, it wasn't a tiny group of people that were aware of her server. She opened up US secrets to people who were not cleared to handle government work.

7. Again, that hasn't been determined yet. The State Dept is opening up an investigation to determine the classification at the time they were sent. Hillary's team can lie about this all they want but they don't get to make the final determination. Also, it doesn't matter if the email was marked classified or not. Hillary was trained on how to handle classified material and how to recognize it without being marked. She also signed a non-disclosure agreement that stated she understood she had to handle marked and non-marked classified material appropriately and report any breaches to the proper people.

8. Again, it doesn't matter that Hillary's team or State thinks there is overclassification. They don't make those determinations. The agency where the Intel originates from gets to make that determination period.

The idea that this is blown out of proportion is insane. This is subject to an FBI, IG, multiple Senate/House and now a State Dept investigation. Hillary and her supporters can keep trying to pretend it is a VRW conspiracy, but the fact of the matter is this is very, very serious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #42)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:51 PM

44. OP cleaarly has no actual IT chops

 

There is no way the original post was written by an actual IT security professional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sivart (Reply #44)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 06:54 PM

46. Yeah, it sounds like it was written by Brian Fallon (Hillary's PR guy). It's completely

Unbelievable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sivart (Reply #44)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:00 PM

49. Are you calling me a lier?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #49)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:09 PM

52. You are certainly uninformed.

You have gotten basic facts wrong about this email mess which I've outlined in my response to you. Every one of your items is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #49)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:23 PM

101. I’m calling you a bad speller :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #49)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:49 PM

137. That you're an IT professional is suspect to anyone who has worked in the field...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #49)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:53 PM

151. If you worked for me, I surely would not promote you.

 

There are several of us who actually are deeply conversant with data security. You're not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sivart (Reply #44)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:08 PM

132. I am an IT Senior Project Manager who supervises PM's who manage...

major hardware installation for a Fortune 50 company.

I don't write like a technical persos because many technical people have trouble communicating with regular folks. When I deal with clients I have learned to avoid the technical jargon and use plain English. On the other hand I have an engineering degree and 15 years in this field, so I can communicate with the technical people on my PM's' teams and their bosses just fine. A good communicator always knows he/her audience and communicates accordingly. I don't need technical gobbledygook to impress and confuse people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #42)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:15 PM

55. This statement about the OP is false on its face, you're number 2 is sophistry at best...

... he didn't have the "same" setup ... of course not, he used a 4 foot cat five cable vs HRC using a wireless network connection or some crap.

Picking fly crap from pepper and the last 5 "investigations not completed" doesn't mean what was stated from what we KNOW RIGHT NOW is not correct

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #42)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:21 PM

59. I don't think 3&4 is about "backing up."

Cajun's contention is that Hillary was exchanging emails with people using government email servers. Mail servers store both incoming and outgoing messages so everything exchanged between the two would be mirrored on both the moment it was sent or received.

(on edit) Now, anything she sent to a non-government account is a different problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gidney N Cloyd (Reply #59)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:39 PM

66. Again, that still isn't right.

The way State indexes emails they were not able to find relevant Hillary emails for FOIA requests because she didn't have an email address. Normally, they would just search the employee's email. So, while the email might exist somewhere on the State system (and that would only be for the very small portion of emails she exchanged with State employees who were using gov email), they had no way to find that email.

Also, State would have no record of emails exchanged with government employees outside of State.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #66)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 09:53 PM

122. All fair arguments.

And assuming no one in State, like her staff, was cc'd on things sent to non-State employees then your last point is troubling. On the other hand I don't think that indexing by sender is that huge an impediment to finding her mail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gidney N Cloyd (Reply #122)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:06 PM

124. State Dept has said it is a big impediment for them to find emails.

Her staff used private email and not state email which is also part of the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #42)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:27 PM

61. Further to this claim

1) There was no government rule which prevented Hillary from setting up and using a private email server to handle her government emails.


We have askews response (from above)

1. President Obama issued an explicit directive to not use personal email for government work. Hillary violated that directive and never told the WH what she was doing. There is also regulations requiring the DHS to be notified of any outside server being used for government work. She failed to do that. She was also expressly forbidden from using Apple products (iPad and iPhone) by State Dept's IT and legal multiple times and she used both anyway in violation with State Dept security regulations. These rules were so serious that President Obama was not allowed to keep an iPhone after elected.


And a judge
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/judge-says-hillary-clintons-private-emails-violated-policy-121568
A federal judge has added fresh fuel to the incendiary controversy over Hillary Clinton’s email, asserting during a hearing Thursday that she violated government policy by storing official messages on a private server when she worked as secretary of state.

“We wouldn’t be here today if this employee had followed government policy,” said U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, apparently referring to Clinton, during a hearing on one of the many Freedom of Information Act lawsuits seeking access to her records as secretary of state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Reply #61)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:40 PM

68. Exactly. This is a mess entirely of Hillary's own doing and I don't see why Dems

Should twist themselves into pretzels to defend something so completely wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Reply #61)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:45 PM

74. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan is a Reagen appointee...

.... who is know for aversion for liberal politicians. Using Republican talking points again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #74)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:52 PM

77. That's not an answer.

He refuted one of your claims. Amend your post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #74)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:08 PM

91. Nice try

Reagan originally appointed him but Clinton put him where he is today:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmet_G._Sullivan
On June 16, 1994, Judge Sullivan was appointed by President Bill Clinton to serve as United States District Judge for the District of Columbia.


This guy who can't stand corporate execs getting off?:
Criminals Should Get Same Leniency as Corporations, Judge Says
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/24/us/politics/criminals-should-get-same-leniency-as-corporations-judge-says.html?ref=topics

U.S. Judges Sound Off on Bank Settlements
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/business/24judges.html?ref=topics

Follow the Dirty Money
“Why isn’t the government getting rough with these banks?” Sullivan
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/opinion/13mazur.html?ref=topics

Guilt by association isn't going to work here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #74)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:08 PM

126. Donald Trump deserves a bump!

That's a republican talking point. The judge has been on the bench for over 30 years without becoming known as an ideologue. Reagan is spelled with an "A" as is your earlier "lier"...Please, just try to keep up because son, you're sinking...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #42)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:40 PM

69. An excellent retort.

Your turn OP. I need info!

EDIT: Oh, the OP retorted with, "You calling me a liar?"

Damn. I had hoped for intelligent discourse. Welp. I'm unchanged then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #42)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:45 PM

110. Thank you. You should make this an OP to counter the misinformation

that they are pushing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:11 PM

53. Ahh , bless your heart. But you forgot where you are. DU is a full time, all day everyday

full blown ATTACK on Hillary Clinton.

When they get tired of attacking her, they go after Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:19 PM

58. Thanks for the post

k&r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:36 PM

62. To me HRC email has always been a non-starter,

That and all the other Red Herrings isn't why I'm not voting for her. It's her record and stands in the past plus the sudden shift to the left after Bernie entered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:39 PM

64. Agreed...this whole stink is just that

Stink. Started by republicans and now picked up by Bernie supporters.

I'm a Bernie supporter and I think e-mailgate and Benghazi and stupid and harmful to the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passiveporcupine (Reply #64)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:33 PM

106. This is far, far different from Benghazi.

That was utter bullshit. This one is legit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:40 PM

70. Why is the FBI

still investigating if what all you said is true?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:42 PM

71. well that's wunnerfull and all but here's the thing

what you say may molify this audience but what about the big picture, do we really want to put a candidate into the GE that is carrying this kind of baggage ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:44 PM

73. Two things

1) your #7 about classified emails is very misinformed. Data classification at the time it was sent is irrelevant.
If classified at a later date it is considered classified from the point of origin. You are always responsible for what you send as an email, if you know it is classified or not.
You are never responsible for what you recieve, you are responsible for what you did with it after you receive it. Knowingly saving, sending, printing or storing potentially classified information is still a crime.

2) Time to move on: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511090122

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #73)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:22 PM

100. Data classification is nin the eye of the beholder

If I were a government employee I might write something in an email that I truly believe should not be classified. In fact it might not even occur to me that it should be classified, but another government agency might look at that email and and claim it should be top secret.

For instance, lets say that one of Clinton's employees reports to her in an email that one of our military officers stationed France, General X, is upsetting his French counterparts and he French Ambassador wants him to stop. Neither Clinton nor her employee might consider the email classified, but later when the Army representative reads it, he doesn't agree.

Government agencies have fights over what should be classified all of the time. It's a common occurrence. Agencies like the CIA over classify information to cover their butt all of the time. Surely you believe that.

And yes, I was an Air Force officer with a Secret clearance and was cleared for Top Secret on one occasion when my job required it. I do understand security classifications.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:46 PM

75. In response:

 

1) There was no government rule which prevented Hillary from setting up and using a private email server to handle her government emails.


Yet there are laws (Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code) prohibiting classified information from being store on/sent from personal email servers. Clinton may also have violated Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

See http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/264655-3-federal-laws-hillary-may-violated-secret-email-accounts/

2) Other State Departments heads including Colon Powell used the exact same set up. I don't hear the Republicans complaining about him.


This is irrelevant to the issue. Claiming "a Republican did it too!" does not absolve Clinton of her culpability.

3) Hillary's server was only used to send and receive messages to and from other government employees in the State Department.


The messages she sent and received were not encrypted, thus they were vulnerable to interception. That you would make this point in defense of Hillary's actions greatly undermines your credibility when claiming to be "an IT professional who knows what he is talking about when it comes to cyber security." I refer you to articles such as this: http://sysadmin1138.net/mt/blog/2010/11/the-risk-of-email-interception.shtml

4) Any emails set to or received from Hillary's server were maintained the State Department's government servers - therefore there is a government record of each and every one.


The New York Times disagrees with you: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/politics/using-private-email-hillary-clinton-thwarted-record-requests.html?_r=1

"Mrs. Clinton’s exclusive use of personal email for her government business is unusual for a high-level official, archive experts have said. Federal regulations, since 2009, have required that all emails be preserved as part of an agency’s record-keeping system. In Mrs. Clinton’s case, her emails were kept on her personal account and her staff took no steps to have them preserved as part of State Department record."

4) Investigations determined that Hillary's server had the exact same security protections required on all State Department government servers.


This statement requires some evidence to back it up. Here are some reports discussing the vulnerability of the server:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/clintons-personal-email-server-vulnerable-hackers/

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/clintons-email-server-vulnerable/

"A more specific threat to Clinton’s private email relates to its domain name. Unlike the State Department’s State.gov domain, Clinton’s Clintonemail.com is currently registered with a private domain registrar, Network Solutions, as a simple Whois search reveals. The domain Clintonemail.com (and thus its registrar) was certainly known to at least one hacker: The notorious celebrity hacker Guccifer first revealed it in 2013 when he spilled the emails of Clinton associate Sydney Blumenthal.

Anyone who hacked Network Solutions would be able to quietly hijack the Clintonemail.com domain, intercepting, redirecting, and even spoofing email from Clinton’s account. And Network Solutions is far from the Internet’s hardest target: Hundreds of its domains were hacked in 2010, a year into Clinton’s tenure at the head of the State Department."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/467ff78858bf4dde8db21677deeff101/only-ap-clinton-server-ran-software-risked-hacking

5) Investigation have also concluded that that there was no security breaches of Hillary's server - yes IT security experts can determine if such a breach occurred.


Depending on the sophistication of the intrusion, it may or may not be detected. The laws prohibiting storage of classified information on personal servers do not only apply in the instance of a confirmed intrusion.


6) Because an email server is most vulnerable to security breaches cause by user error - such as opening a document on a fake email which releases a virus which allows the server to be hacked - the less people having access to a server, the more secure it is. So Hillary's server was probably more secure than the State Department's email machines. (Note: There have been several reports of government servers being hacked and very sensitive data being lost. This did not happen on Hillary's server.)


See the Wired.com link above.

7) The 7 emails in question were not classified when they were sent and received.


Irrelevant.

8) The State Department is not withholding the 7 emails because they believe they that the emails should be classified; it is another government agency that is claiming that they should be classified. It is a well known fact that there is a propensity in many government agencies to over classify data - often because the information in question may make the the agency look bad if it was ever publicized. It is their way of making sure that the public never knows that they screwed up. I am not saying that is what is going on here, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised me if it were the case because that is often a prime reason why different agencies disagree on information classification.


Over-classification is indeed a problem. However, it is irrelevant to application of the law.

Bottom line: The entire affair was totally blown totally out of proportion by Republican seeking political advantage. If Democrats are repeating Republicans talking points on this issue, they should be ashamed of themselves.


https://theintercept.com/2015/08/12/hillary-clinton-sanctity-protecting-classified-information/

"When it comes to low-level government employees with no power, the Obama administration has purposely prosecuted them as harshly as possible to the point of vindictiveness: It has notoriously prosecuted more individuals under the Espionage Act of 1917 for improperly handling classified information than all previous administrations combined.

NSA whistleblower Tom Drake, for instance, faced years in prison, and ultimately had his career destroyed, based on the Obama DOJ’s claims that he “mishandled” classified information (it included information that was not formally classified at the time but was retroactively decreed to be such). Less than two weeks ago, “a Naval reservist was convicted and sentenced for mishandling classified military materials” despite no “evidence he intended to distribute them.” Last year, a Naval officer was convicted of mishandling classified information also in the absence of any intent to distribute it.

In the light of these new Clinton revelations, the very same people who spent years justifying this obsessive assault are now scampering for reasons why a huge exception should be made for the Democratic Party front-runner. Fascinatingly, one of the most vocal defenders of this Obama DOJ record of persecution has been Hillary Clinton herself."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #75)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 05:40 PM

153. great response

with actual links and proof...which the op had none of

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:50 PM

76. Provide source information, instead of "what we should know,' as little touches on IT security.

.


If you were an IT guy, you'd know that only a complete moron places their email system on a single server.


No bus architecture, no multi-level firewall protection, no nothing.


Most of what you write has nothing to do with system security, as what little is here, a novice knows.


.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheBlackAdder (Reply #76)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:22 PM

130. No, a novice knows more than what is in this OP. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:52 PM

78. K&R'd

to keep it on the top....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:52 PM

79. Of course the most important one is THEY WERE NOT MARKED CLASSIFIED AT THE TIME THEY WERE SENT

What is going on here is disgusting.

The faux "outrage" almost sound like they are getting their talking points from the republicans.

NOTHING ILLEGAL WAS DONE

Thanks for the OP and your points. The usual suspects will continue with their bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #79)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:12 PM

95. EXACTLY. Hillary continues to have my support, and my vote. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #79)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:23 PM

131. So Karl Rove was fine when he outed Plame?

After all, "It wasn't marked!!!" was his excuse. Should we go apologize to Scooter Libby for his prosecution?

Or are you finally going to get that something is classified, whether or not it is properly marked?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:56 PM

82. ****

Not a single source for anything you posted other than "I am an IT professional who knows what he is talking about when it comes to cyber security."

Wasted my time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 07:57 PM

83. IT professional? I'd love to see your justification for #6

 

If I load a flash object in my browser that contains a virus, I infect my local machine, not the web server from which I retrieved the web page.

How exactly does retrieving an infected email from an email server infect the email server? That doesn't make sense at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:05 PM

87. As to question #5

Would somebody be able to tell if two people were "dead dropping" a message between themselves?

I.E. only using the the draft function between two people, so as to never leave an email paper trail?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:06 PM

90. + 1,000,000 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:11 PM

92. completely blown up - i've heard all the republicans critisizing her have done it too.

attacking Hillary for these republicans smears is letting republicans win. Is destroying her good name the only way supporters of Bernie or O'Malley think that their candidate can win the primary?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:11 PM

93. Hey I'm IT too

 

Had DOD clearance not to long ago. Worked for one of the Tricare providers. Man those government audits were a bear. If you followed every thing that was called for the equipment wouldn't work. Then you had to submit in writing justification as to why you were backing out what was called for by the DOD. A lot of late nights going through audits.
Can't speak for how the state does it I never worked with them so it may be more lax then DOD, don't know.
I do have a few issue or maybe it's just lack of understanding regarding some of your post.

1) under the rules that regulate the contractors for the government, (DOD anyway) you would have lost the contract or faced heavy fines for standing up your own off-site server that held or could hold any DOD information. Again it may be different at State.

2) This argument was used by Republicans when Richard Nixon and his Plumbers got nailed. It doesn't make it right.

3) Hillary herself said it was a personal email server and she even sent personal emails from it.

4) The servers were on separate networks and did not speak to one another so the State's servers would not have known what was sent from the one in her home. They only would have known about emails sent between the State's mail servers and hers, not any sent to Chelsea or any one else.

4) you have two fours. Minus the States Firewall, patching schedule, encryption..maybe yes maybe no..

5) Haven't read that but as far as I know you haven't lied to me so I'll take your word and research on my own if that is the case.

6) If Hillary did send and receive personal email and again she said she had, she could have opened Malware, Virus, Trojans and just got lucky that her DAT file was up to date. So her server probably wasn't more secure especially without the States Firewall rules in place.

7) I had heard in the story out today that they are still checking into that. Even if they weren't classified when sent, well they may be now and on a server out of their control.

8) is a hypothetical

9) Or are classified, yes

Bottom line is the entire affair may well be totally blown out of proportion and we got lucky no classified information was compromised. The investigation is still on going and will be due to very poor judgment from a very experienced person. And I do agree with you, If Democrats are repeating Republican talking points (see bullet 2), they should be ashamed of themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:14 PM

96. lovely, but dead wrong on all points. Your claims have zip to do with being "an IT professional"

 

and knowing "cyber security" has very little to do with Government classification and security of government information, and nothing to do with the facts in this situation.

1. Duty to protect information including level of system security, which was not provided.

2. Wrong. Colin Power did not have "the exact same setup" by a long shot.

3. Wrong. Sidney Blumenthal (and others) were *not* in the State Dept. In fact, Obama specifically prevented Blumenthal from working at State due to his slimy history.

4. No they were not.

4 again. Absolutely wrong. That is one of the things the FBI is looking into -- determining what, if any, security was on Hillary's system. That is why her IT guy pleaded the 5th and refuses to talk without complete immunity. And that doesn't even take into account the backup, which turned out stored her emails in "the cloud."

5. Whether or not breached occurred are part of what the FBI is investigating. The FBI has yet to report on its investigation.

6. The State Dept. says the info was Top Secret. Obama admits it as well.

7. That is being looked into now; again, it has not yet been confirmed either way. However, there are types of data that are "born classified."

8. The State Dept and Obama admit the info in those 7 emails is top secret.

9. The State Dept. is "slow walking" the investigation trying to protect Hillary. The FBI is not trying to protect Hillary. This will blow up before the general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #96)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:31 PM

105. Yup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:18 PM

97. I like the posts where you are a martial arts and self defense professional much better than this.

 

Citing Colin Powell as authority is not a good choice because Powell is a man known to have pushed false data to the UN as part of that whole 'let's invade Iraq' craze that Hillary got caught up in. He's a very bad mention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #97)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:34 PM

107. Well, I am that part time - call it a hobby that turned out to be a part time job, from which...

I am now retired. My knees can't handle the strain of anything more than teaching an occasional women's self defense class. If you know martial arts you might recognize my avatar.

Call me naive, but I still like Powell even though I think I understand his role in the propaganda Bush, Rumsfeld and Chaney used to convince the American people and the rest of the world to go to war in in Iraq. Unlike the other three, I still consider him an honorable man and he was one hell of an Army officer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:24 PM

102. You forgot

Fux news and salivating opposition are driving this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:27 PM

103. You may be an IT professional but you left out important details

1. Does Hillary have a safe that was cleared for storage of classified materials
2.Taking the documents home without proper markings and under lock are a violation in themselves.
3. Classified documents are to be classified immediately if possible and if nort are to be handled as if they have the highest classification.
4. Classified documents are to be stored in a safe and if not in that safe are to be logged out according to security officer instructions not according to what you want.

You seem not to have much knowledge of the physical security that is required by regulations. Those of us who have handled classified documents over the years , while not "IT professionals", take the rules seriously and see her failure to follow those rules as something a lower graded employee would be fired for if they did what she did. As far as what has been divulged from these emails, we cannot possibly know this as she could have given them to commie spies to copy on a Xerox. While I doubt this occurred, you cannot establish it did not because of her failure to follow regulations. Where those documents were at her home is very relevant and because it is easier to work at home is no excuse to break the rules. Her lack of judgement, arrogance,and inability to follow procedure is alarming.
As far as Powell goes, two wrongs do not make a right, or maybe it does if you support Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daybranch (Reply #103)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:50 PM

111. If you know government regulations on document classification -

- and I do since I held a Secret clearance when I was an Air Force - you know that government agencies argue about classifications of information all of the time.

What is happening here is that emails that the State Department didn't, and still does not believe should classified, are being viewed as needing classification by another agency after the fact. Usually other agencies would not have access to State Department emails so this wouldn't normally come because such emails would not normally be released to the public. However, since Clinton is asking for them to be released, the emails are being scrutinized by multiple agencies to ensure that sensitive information doesn't get out.

That's why the State Department is withholding 7 emails out of literately thousands until it does it's own due diligence as to whether they deserve to be classified or released to the public as per Hillary's request.

Of course the Republicans, thought they know all of this, will still try to use this against Hillary. It's disingenuous, but that's politics.

On the other hand, Democrats should follow Bernie's example and not pile on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daybranch (Reply #103)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:53 PM

112. Thank you.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:36 PM

108. #4 alone is easily disproved

HRC's server was first maintained in her home and later moved to a New Jersey data center, both of which lacked the basic physical security typical of pretty much any governmental top secret storage, and the people who maintained the operation most certainly didn't have security clearances required by governmental security protocols.

I've seen government top secret data storage operations. They are locked up tighter than a drum. So while it may have been true that HRC had the Secret Service guarding her home, I'm pretty sure she wasn't following physical security protocols required of any such operation, which are quite extensive. The NJ data center, facilitated by a mom-and-pop operation would have been less likely to have such protections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #108)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:43 PM

109. Thanks for the half-baked "insight", Trey Gowdy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #109)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 09:07 PM

117. Sure, and your obviously well sourced and knowledgeable retort certainly helps

Just kidding, the best you could manage was name calling.

If you want to educate yourself on the subject you can start with the physical security requirements for SIPRNet, which is the DoD protocols for up to and including SECRET. Obviously the protocols for TOP SECRET are going to well exceed these requirements.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/510521m_vol2.pdf

When you get done at least half-baking anything remotely resembling knowledge on the subject, please let me know if you think HRC's mom-and-pop contractor was coming within a cab ride of complying with even the far lower standards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:53 PM

113. Blah blah blah facts blah blah facts facts blah blah facts ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:56 PM

114. Okay Folks, I have tried to get to all of your questions, but I'm tired of typing

One last word before I go: Bernie apparently doesn't think that this issue is a big deal. For once his supporters should take his advice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #114)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:03 PM

123. I agree. It's not a big deal

But HRC's handling of the issue just demonstrates why she's not ready for prime time. Every time she puts out information that is easily debunked, it simply provides more ammo to those who will turn this into a big deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #123)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:18 PM

133. Everybody makes mistakes - no one is immune

In hind sight Bernie probably regrets voting to give immunity to gun shops and gun manufactures since that vote has been used against him repeatedly. "To err is human, to forgive is divine." I guess we humans aren't much on the divinity part yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:57 PM

115. 22 email, 7 email chains. If you can't even get the most basic facts straight...

 

shy should anyone believe you about the more difficult stuff?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:58 PM

116. this time and money consuming harassment of democrats

by the gop should be considered criminal in light of what it is costing taxpayers. i hope when hillary and president obama are proven to not be the criminals the gop accuse them of being - that they are counter sued for the cost to taxpayers in addition to any loss of jobs or revenue the american people/ government suffer as a result.

i would like to see the gop charged for the cost of:

all of the anti obamacare legislation that has failed on charges of frivolity and squandering of taxpayer monies;

any loss to the government and government employees, service, business as usual as a result of holding the budget hostage due shutdowns for purely political power plays with shenanigans and theatre filibusters. in this case the legislators should have to pay a hefty fine from their personal monies.

the gop are the criminals. i understand in some cases there should be investigations - but, what the gop are doing to stall our country and to leave the american taxpayers footing the bill is a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 09:08 PM

118. K&R. Thank you for making it so clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 09:44 PM

121. This is a great post. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:15 PM

127. Can't even get to #3 without lying?

3) Hillary's server was only used to send and receive messages to and from other government employees in the State Department

Nope.

It's been widely reported she used the email for both personal and government subjects. That was the reason Clinton gave for why she could not just turn over everything.

Also, if this was correct, she'd be in more legal trouble. FOIA requires that she turn over all of her work emails. If she really only used the server as you say, then she broke the hell out of FOIA with emails she claimed were personal.

4) Any emails set to or received from Hillary's server were maintained the State Department's government servers - therefore there is a government record of each and every one.

False. She sent and received emails to people outside the state department.

4) Investigations determined that Hillary's server had the exact same security protections required on all State Department government servers.

This is a blatant lie.

Communications with her server were not encrypted for the first 5 months.
https://www.venafi.com/blog/post/what-venafi-trustnet-tells-us-about-the-clinton-email-server/

The VPN appliance protecting her server had the default keys installed. That's basically the same as leaving your car keys in your car door.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-04/clinton-s-e-mail-system-built-for-privacy-though-not-security

They were using, and continue to use, self-signed SSL certificates.
http://gawker.com/how-unsafe-was-hillary-clintons-secret-staff-email-syst-1689393042

Her ISP was repeatedly hacked by China.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=615632

5) Investigation have also concluded that that there was no security breaches of Hillary's server - yes IT security experts can determine if such a breach occurred.

This is another lie. There has been no statement saying it was hacked, or that it was not hacked. Given the abysmal security above, it was hacked. China and Russia are really damn good, and those holes could be exploited by a script kiddie.

6) Because an email server is most vulnerable to security breaches cause by user error - such as opening a document on a fake email which releases a virus which allows 0the server to be hacked - the less people having access to a server, the more secure it is.



Hey, how about the user error of typing in "@clintonmail.com" in the email address? See, since she registered her own .com email, someone else registered a domain with a typo (no e between clinton and mail). So she actually made it easier to spearphish, by using a .com address.

7) The 7 emails in question were not classified when they were sent and received.

False. The emails were not marked classified. The information was classified. The lack of markings did not mean it was not classified, and this is drilled into everyone who receives access to classified information in their training.

Also, "It wasn't marked!" was Karl Rove's excuse for outing Plame. Was that acceptable to you? Should we apologize to Scooter Libby?

8) The State Department is not withholding the 7 emails because they believe they that the emails should be classified; it is another government agency that is claiming that they should be classified. It is a well known fact that there is a propensity in many government agencies to over classify data

Whether or not something is classified is determined by the first people to produce the information. Their decision wins throughout the government. It doesn't matter if State doesn't think it should be classified. Clinton had to treat it as classified.

If State thought the information was overclassified, there is a system to challenge a classification. You have to actually follow that process before treating it as unclassified.

Also, this point would be irrelevant if 7 was actually true.

9) The State Department is not saying that they will never distribute the emails. They are saying that they are withholding them for now until they can do their own investigation as to whether the emails should be classified.

So the State department is lying to a federal judge now? Or perhaps you are wrong.

And yes, I am an IT professional who knows what he is talking about when it comes to cyber security

I really, really, really, really, really, really hope you are lying about this. Because if this is remotely true, you need to change jobs immediately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #127)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:34 PM

136. Nailed it.

Great Analysis and spot on, on all aspects of this strange OP. Your last comment especially.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #127)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:00 PM

152. I'm a data security professional; so are others on this thread. Maybe you are too. The OP is not.

 

Anyone claiming that keeping a server in one's house is as safe or safer than having it on a government network doesn't know what he or she is talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:20 PM

129. Ok so nothing illegal. Judgement wasn't good though, just like Iraq War vote. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:38 AM

142. THERE ARE 7 EMAILS SO SENSITIVE THE INVESTIGATORS CAN'T SEE THEM.

 

Whut?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:44 AM

144. I've got some news for you - the Gop & the Koch Bros & Karl are not going to read your list.

Sorry.

They are out for her blood and you know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:45 AM

145. I actually feel sorry for those who Recced this

Exposed as embarrassing minions without any understanding of security clearances.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #145)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:46 AM

148. I have no idea who you are & you have no creds here...who to believe?

 

You offer no rebuttals, no facts, no info, no nothing only insults. So,who to believe? Well, not you, that's for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:37 PM

149. K & R. Thanks for the reasonable perspective.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sun Jan 31, 2016, 08:30 AM

155. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sun Jan 31, 2016, 08:32 AM

156. Excellent! Thanks !!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sun Jan 31, 2016, 08:51 AM

157. Clinton is a horrible candidate, but I have yet to see anything scandalous about Clinton's emails

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread