This server issue has me very worried.

[cliffordu]

If she gets elected and ONE operative of the US intelligence services, military or diplomatic corps spying on our behalf is compromised or killed as a result of that server being hacked.....the blowback from the intelligence community and the military - the joint chiefs - will be very real and potentially very dangerous to all of us.

She fucked this completely up.

[cliffordu]

7. I saw that.

Worst case scenario- the US HAS NO MORE STATE SECRETS.

Which, in the long run, might be the best case scenario.....

[Tal Vez]

5. Thank you for the welcome. And,

I don't regard your post as any more ridiculous than the post that began this thread or my own post. So, please don't feel guilty.

Maybe soon we can all forget about our "what ifs" and unite in an effort to keep Trump out of the White House.

[hootinholler]

22. Oh come on

That shit was funny

[merrily]

29. Wha? I'm not your priest(ess)?

[merrily]

68. LOL!

Go and sin no more.

[merrily]

70. I'm easy: basic genuflection will do. Maybe throw in a tithe.

[merrily]

73. Agents get at least 15%, so there's that.

[fleur-de-lisa]

66. Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

On Fri May 27, 2016, 08:05 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Welcome
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2065238

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This poster continually calls out newish members like this to imply "troll status." This kind of harassment needs to stop, particularly when such posters can't even be bothered to invest in the site themselves. Screening new members is NOT this person's job. This is incredibly rude and inappropriate. If this post has already been alerted, I hope admin takes a good look at who allows this kind of bullying to continue here.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri May 27, 2016, 08:17 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If you don't think the onrush of "new" posters, or dormant accounts since 2008 now posting hundreds of posts in the last month isn't a real thing...
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: First of all, I can't believe the comment just before this one got hidden. It was even more innocuous than this one. That said, if the alerter's accusations are true, let skinner handle it. Nothing here is worth hiding. And yes, I have seen this member post the same stupid comment on other posts, but again, this is one for the admins, not a jury.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is nothing in this particular post that breaks TOS as far as I can see. "This poster continually" is a big clue that a post is not alertable.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Looks like a retaliatory alert to me. Because the "newish poster" got alerted on and hidden does not mean that this one should be too.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[cliffordu]

6. I figured Brock had stopped hiring by now.

Apparently not

[Art_from_Ark]

9. The first million apparently didn't get the expected results

[pengu]

27. They went for quantity over quality

[Hortensis]

38. Our enemies are the plutocracy behind this

server crappola and so much else. Want to live in an authoritarian democracy dominated by a few wealthy families and corporate power blocks?

Worry about Hillary instead of them. Don't vote. That's their game plan.

They're working very hard to distract US from the enormous threat they pose and to turn US on ourselves. They were successful and confident before we elected Obama, and now they are very afraid of us, afraid of what we will do to them if they lose this election.

We have a job to do.

[notadmblnd]

53. Hillary IS them.

[pdsimdars]

63. So, just like the Republicans they are, they're going to throw more money at it

[merrily]

33. Two big influxes, last October and this May.

[Contrary1]

10. I don't know...what? n/t

[Samantha]

4. She had a list of agents that had their real names as well as their code names on her computer

Some of these agents were working overseas. And of course the Intelligence Community was upset when this was discovered.

Additionally, one of the emails between her and Sidney Blumenthal referenced an agent, and instead of using his or code name in the email, the originator had used the real name. I saw that and absolutely could not believe it.

Sam

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. Think about the Career members of State, FBI and Justice etc.

I haven't seen anyone coming forward defending her actions on this affair but I guarantee you will see some coming forward later describing their disgust with her handling of this affair but only when they are out of the system. Also You can bet there will be some behind the scene push back with lifers within the system if she is elected which will have unforeseen consequences and taint the functionality of government agencies.

She broke the 'rules, laws, procedures' or however you want to label it, that would have landed them in either in Federal Prison, fined, fired and/or the loss of their federal pension. This doesn't make happy campers.

[Aerows]

11. A large number of people

haven't been sleeping easy for a while. If some folks trying to spin this are having a bit of heartburn, it's not even approaching just desserts, but somewhere involving just and ice.

[Ichingcarpenter]

14. " Klintonerdämmerung '' just for laughs

But I do like that her real voice, and own words are used telling us about the 30,000 personal emails she deleted for yoga class and Chelsea's wedding.

But yes some are worried, both within the Clinton faction and the ones that might be in jeopardy because of her actions.

[cliffordu]

17. Lol

[PADemD]

20. Needs its own post.

[Ichingcarpenter]

21. feel free to post it wherever you want

I did post under

"Everyone leave the room except Keitel, Krebs, Jodl, and Burgdorf..."

in the B forum.

[Pastiche423]

88. Wouldn't need to wear pantsuits

gmfao!

[grasswire]

12. and an email between Blumenthal and HRC..

...had nearly real time intel from a conversation an NSA asset had regarding Sudan. Copied word for word from the NSA conversation. How Blumenthal got that is very scary and something the NSA won't forget.

[cliffordu]

13. Jesus.

[BainsBane]

45. Let's see your source

Let's see the document.

[Major Hogwash]

18. OMG! I just figured out what her defense will be.

She'll declare that she's a whistleblower!!

That should make all of her legal troubles disappear.

[pengu]

28. Obama jails whistleblowers

[HereSince1628]

59. I expect her defense will be she was treated badly because she's a she ...

She didn't get that high security Blackberry because she was a she. She wanted what the big boy in the WH had and they refused her. THAT was sexist.

And the VRWC was after her because she was a she. And she didn't want any emails to be 'miss'-interpreted by republican sexists looking for her scalp. Just imagine what they'd do with any pleasantries between her and staff?

And she HAD to open up "BACK-CHANNELS" to the CIA through leaks of national secrets because people at the CIA wouldn't share information with her in real time because she's a she.

Why do I suspect this? Because it follows the pattern she's already used. Moreover its resonance reaches out to her strongest corps of supporters... women, who share an understanding of often being treated unfairly.

[oberliner]

19. What if one of those people is killed as a result of the State Dept server being hacked?

Sources: State Dept. hack the 'worst ever'

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/state-department-hack-worst-ever/

[cliffordu]

23. Well, then heads will roll there, too.

Nice canard ya got there.

If it happens they'll know where the leak came from....none of her shit was on their servers, remember?

Another thought: Did they get into Clintons server and then spoof their way into the main server at State?

"Say, bob, send me those asset movements I asked for earlier, would you? I seemed to have misplaced the copy of your memo dated whenever....and update the info for me too, will ya, big guy?

Thx

HRC

[oberliner]

25. Canard?

The repeated hacking of government servers has been widely reported.

I think the government has a lot of work to do in terms of securing its information and protecting itself from hackers.

[stevenleser]

76. It's not a canard. The point is that the state.gov email is not secure and not rated for classified

information either.

As we know from the Manning situation, information classified as Secret has to be sent via SIPRnet and Top Secret has to be sent via JWICS. It is just as wrong to have accidentally sent or received email via state.gov as via a private email system.

Your OP is wrong because of those facts.

[Uncle Joe]

24. Then it's the government's responsibility or fault not a loose cannon, prima donna operating

a shadow department out from under Presidential supervision.

[oberliner]

26. Exactly

It is disturbing how poorly protected this information seems to be.

[Uncle Joe]

31. No you're missing the point, this is and should be government purview,

whether information is protected competently or poorly.

Loose cannon, prima donnas operating shadow departments out from under Presidential Supervision pose not only a great risk to national security but undermine accountability as well.

Hillary did no favors for President Obama with her actions, indeed she just showed disdain.

[oberliner]

32. I was making a separate point

Tangentially related to the topic of the OP. In addition to the problems inherent in what Clinton did with her emails and server, there are also significant problems with the US government servers and emails that ought to be examined.

[cliffordu]

34. You are exactly right.

There's no excuse for losing ONE peice of information in the governments computer systems.

Whether through idiocy, lax security, bad password management or a server in my bathroom.

[Uncle Joe]

36. I agree with you that government should continuously upgrade its information technology

and update its communications policies in regards to protection from hacking but having major members operate outside the system only serves to undermine governmental employee allegiance to such reforms from taking hold.

"If she/he can do it why can't I?"

[BainsBane]

41. She should have used AOL like Powell did

He used AOL exclusively. That's real secure.

[Uncle Joe]

44. Powell operated within the system, at that time there wasn't so much concern about

people hacking governmental servers and e-mails.

Powell never operated a shadow department out from under Presidential supervision.

As information technology improved and with growing awareness of the hacking threat governmental policies and rules specifically outlining what could and couldn't be done were changed and updated, these policies, rules and basic common sense are what Hillary violated.

[BainsBane]

49. He used AOL. Something you clearly prefer to a secure server

State Department email technology has not kept up. There was a report yesterday showing that 2/3 of the federal computing budget is spent on maintaining out of date technology, some of it 50 years old. The reason EVERY Secretary of State until Kerry used private rather than State Dept email is because the system was unworkable, decades behind email everyone else uses.

To claim there is an evolution in awareness is to say nothing. The technology was antiquated, probably still is. The only point you convey is that you make excuses for a Bush appointed Republican who used a far less secure system and attack a Democrat.

And hell will freeze over before I believe any of you give a shit about hacking, not after celebrating Assange for years on this site, to the point of insisting he is too important to have to face an arrest warrant for rape.

The State Department has had massive breaches of security through their email system. There is no evidence that Clinton's did. To claim this is about concerns for hacking and compromising state secrets is absolutely incredible. People have made abundantly clear where they stand on these issues, and it has always been on the side of hackers and those who leak classified info. So spare me the phony concern.

[Uncle Joe]

50. That should be sole governmental purview to correct not the choice of loose cannon, prima donnas

operating shadow departments out from under Presidential supervision.

Hillary did President Obama no favors with her actions; only showing disdain.

Hillary's self-serving actions sent a message to any governmental employee, "If she can do it, why can't I" government can't effectively operate under such a dysfunctional premise.

[BainsBane]

52. kinda like a guy who refuses to release his tax returns

or systematically and repeatedly violates campaign finance law, all while making an argument he should be able to be the nominee despite being rejected by the overwhelming majority of voters--only without the gendered trope.

The rules Clinton violated were put in place AFTER she set up the server, not before. Meanwhile, Sanders ignores constitutional principles like equal voting rights and electoral democracy.

[Uncle Joe]

61. There are no laws or rules requiring a Presidential Candidate to release their tax returns, if the

IRS has a problem with Bernie I'm sure after all these years they would let him know.

The information technology rules and regulations were set in place while Hillary was Secretary of State she insisted that her subordinates obey them despite her own unwillingness to do so, Hillary's people even went so far as to overrule their advice and concerns telling them to never bring the issue up again, this is in the Inspector General Report.

She privately communicated with and received "intelligence" from sources ie: Sidney Blumenthal of which went against President Obama's directive.

Hillary's transcripts of private speeches to industry groups which have supplied huge sums of money (millions of dollars) to a long known highly probable candidate and or her husband over the past decade can and will affect policy decisions, to deny this is to deny reality.

Hillary knows this and that's why she won't release the transcripts.

You can keep your focus on the trees or step back and actually see the forest, your choice.

[Matt_in_STL]

43. Probably not something you want to push

The Clinton State Department requested additional budget for cyber security and then failed to use that budget or increase the security of the networks, allowing for an increased degradation of network security. Had they used the budget appropriately, the hack very well could have not been successful. And why did she not use the budget or concern herself with the network security at State?

Because she had her own private server and it didn't affect her.

I don't think I'd hitch my wagon to that deflection, but I have seen stranger things around here lately.

[oberliner]

46. It should be pushed and it's not a deflection

What Hillary did was wrong and dangerous.

The current situation with respect to government servers and security is also wrong and dangerous.

This situation with Hillary ought to bring more attention to the significant hacking problems that exist currently and how urgent it is to do something about them.

[Matt_in_STL]

48. Ah, okay. I read that as a reason why her email scheme was okay.

Message board tone reading: Level 0

[stevenleser]

77. You fundamentally misunderstand the situation. State.gov email is not meant to be secure.

The executive branch has two email systems for classified information, SPIRNet (for information classified up to Secret)and JWICS for Top Secret. State.gov email is not acceptable for classified information and that is not the intended use for that email.

In other words, in terms of national security, its just as much of a violation to use state.gov to send or receive classified information as it is a private server or yahoo email.

[Fawke Em]

87. You do know we don't keep national security secrets on the .gov email server, right?

National secrets are kept on SIPRnet and JWICS and you cannot email into or out of them: unless you're a Clinton aide and you hand copy it, remove the headers and email to your boss on her private and unsecure server.

So, yes. The government has been hacked and I'm not down-playing that sensitive information was possibly breached, but it's really not the same thing at all.

[berni_mccoy]

30. Your worry has become reality:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512061653

[cliffordu]

35. Yeah, I was reading that.

Damn.

[BainsBane]

42. From the same people who celebrate Assange as a hero

[berni_mccoy]

55. I've never celebrated Assange or Snowden as heroes. Quite the contrary

I felt they should be detained and brought to justice in the U.S.

You can check my posts on this.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. It should and it already has

[BainsBane]

39. And all the personnel compromised by the documents Assange published?

Yet he's a hero here. There is no evidence her server was hacked, and the fact is other govt data has been hacked and published, and the very people complaining about Clinton's server celebrated that hacking. So spare me.

[cliffordu]

47. Nope. Not going to spare you anything.

[BainsBane]

51. There is rank hypocrisy

People on this site have celebrated hackers, held them up as heroes, and sided with everyone who has released classified documents, even indiscriminately as Assange did. They even insisted he was too important to respond to a legal arrest warrant for rape, so great was his service to the public. To then turn around and claim grave concern for the mere possibility of compromised emails--when there is no evidence any hacking occurred--is utterly unbelievable.

There is proof the State Department has experienced major data breaches from hacking, yet no evidence that Clinton's server was hacked. Meanwhile, Assange orchestrated a data dump of millions of documents, and he is proclaimed a hero.

This "grave concern" doesn't pass the smell test.

[cliffordu]

54. Sorry, I am completely indifferent

To Assange. He wasn't Secretary of State.

The courts will deal with him in their own time, I will not defend him in the slightest.

And what he did has NOTHING to do with what Clinton did.

I am sorry you think her running State Department business through an unprotected Windows computer in her home is acceptable.

There is no possible scenario where it would be considered prudent, professional, secure or wise.

None.

[BainsBane]

57. I don't disagree that it wasn't wise or prudent

but to go from there to imagining that government personnel were endangered as a result, with no evidence to support it, is another thing entirely.

You may not be an Assange devotee, but the majority of Clinton's detractors on this site have repeatedly heralded him as too important to be held to the laws of mere mortals. When it comes to compromising government info, many of those currently attacking Clinton over the email server have repeatedly spoken out in favor of the unauthorized release of such data. For them to then turn around and claim concern is absolutely hypocritical.

In your case, there is no reason to start imagining doomsday scenarios without evidence.

[cliffordu]

62. And that Windows computer

In her basement, running unprotected, IS the doomsday scenario. As I said above....we might not HAVE any more state secrets.

I am truly sorry you don't understand the gravity of what the fourth or fifth most powerful human in the world leaving the door open that far truly means.

And for what? Private emails? Are you KIDDING?

[zazen]

60. I would actually agree were it not for the presumed motive behind the personal server

First, Cheney committed treason when he leaked the info on Joe Wilson, and that was deliberate and he was VP, so that was far worse.

Second, I know you don't see it this way but I'd venture to say that most of us concerned about the server are concerned that her motive for using it was to keep SOS/Clinton Foundation connections private, and so to risk national security for venal gain is what is so appalling to me here.

Had she leaked something for a larger purpose that she felt was right, even though others would disagree with her--well, I could at least respect her for being selfless (in her own mind). Or had this just been the cluelessness of a non-tech person who arrogantly felt that the minutiae of requirements was impeding their ability to get things done on behalf of the State Department--it'd be sanctionable and make me question their ability to serve as POTUS, but it's not odious.

But this seems motivated by such entitlement and self-regard for backroom kickbacks--and to risk security for THAT is what puts this in another category--not as bad as Cheney, but less respectable than Assange (for all of his womanizing) or Snowden.

[HereSince1628]

40. She's got tonnes of experience, the OIG report documents some of that.

Ever notice how that experience thing has been nuanced to incorporate the suggestion of -successful- experience while really saying nothing about the extent to which it involved only good judgment.

It's a remarkable success of her PR people. Future politics students and campaign staff will study how that was achieved.

[cliffordu]

56. Yeah- it's not lost on me

That she claims innocence at how email works and yet has the wherewithal and expertise to order a private server.....

[alc]

58. your scenario doesn't concern me

The scenario that concerns me is if

1) She did something criminally wrong
2) The FBI can't prove it
3) Someone else has the evidence the FBI didn't find.

There's a lot of evidence she wan't aware of - the physical server, the backup in the cloud, etc. Hopefully the FBI found everything and decides there was no crime. But if they didn't find everything, what would she do to keep the information from getting to congress (and going through all this again the news or even impeachment)? Whether it's about the server itself or emails she didn't turn over that give the appearance of selling arms in return for donations to her foundation. Even if there was no intent, the wrong wording on a "personal email" about the foundation that wasn't turned over could do serious damage. And many people will interpret the wording in the worst possible way (e.g. requesting a bribe).

Russia could even release the 20,000 emails they say they have with a few fake emails mixed in that destroy her. And she won't be able to prove those few are fake. Congress may not be able to prove they are real for impeachment, but she's in a real bad spot and we're talking emails for 4 years instead of issues that matter.

[LAS14]

64. Why don't you let the people...

... who are there do the worrying? They don't see any reason for action against Hillary.

[beaglelover]

65. Your concern is noted.

[apnu]

75. Yes Hillary fucked this up.

We've got a shitty choice right now.

Bernie's odds of winning the DNC nom is pretty slim right now. Supers will have to tip the scales for him en masse for him to replace Hillary.

So unless she's indicted and/or in jail, she's likely the nominee.

And on the other side we have the worst possible person running for President, Donald Trump.

As horrid Hillary could be to the Intelligence and Military communities, Donald Trump is worse for them. He cannot keep his mouth shut and he consistently contradicts himself and plays power games. That's no way to operate the biggest and most dangerous military in human history.

Our choices are shitty. Hillary or Trump right now. Ew.

[saidsimplesimon]

78. Recommended cliffordu

How many billions have we sunk into the NSA, Homeland Security and the MIC? Now there are frequent hacks into government systems, including personnel files of all career intelligence and diplomatic employees.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cybersecurity-usa-idUSKCN0PJ2M420150709

[cliffordu]

79. Good read.

That is an HR server with names and information of potential employees, in clear text (!!!!!) and probably credit reporting information.... Not details of operations in progress or status of assets in the field.

The article says no live assets or current employees are listed.

This IS an egregious hack to be sure, but not on the scale of what was reported to be on her server.

Not even in the same ballpark.

YMMV, of course.

[B Calm]

80. What's really hypocritical, she is campaigning on being strong on national security. This

is not going away and I fear she may be our candidate. She needs drop out now so the Democratic party can put a little space between her and us and save face. But if she is our nominee with this much baggage, I fear Trump might really beat her in November. Scary shit!

[Dem2]

81. Concern noted.

[cliffordu]

82. Lol. That was the first thing I ever posted on DU

Back in the day...

Keep watching, this should be spectacular.

A horrible, heartbreaking, disgusting kinda spectacular.

[Dem2]

83. Never happen

I've said it over and over again, and I'd bet big money on it.

[B Calm]

86. Ever thought about quitting your job and taking that act to Vegas?

[Warren DeMontague]

84. yeah, look on the bright side

No matter what happens, her supporters will try to blame it on "berniebros"

[cliffordu]

85. Yep.

Next up: all the berniebros at Justice.