So, Hillary had a server at her house

This is all repub BS blown out the bullhorn of their corp media... The media wants to talk about mindless servers cause they sure as shit don't want to talk about her graft and money from all those speeches she made for big big bucks, why doesn't the R's and media want to talk about that?

Because they like to ride that same gravy train of political corporate corruption...

pigs at the trough.

If the goal was to hide stuff, this was an epic fail.

nt

When you own the server, you control a lot more.

If you use gmail, guess what happens if the FBI comes along and asks for copies? Gmail says here's every one of them along with all the relevant logs associated with each one... They back up ad nauseam... There's no calling up Google and asking them if they can cut your backups to 30 days. EVERYTHING is out there.

Listen, if done right, a private server would have shielded all her communications from anyone. She could have put all her aids on it and when they emailed each other, there would be no paper trail except on her server (which she controlled). She could have encrypted her disk so the FBI couldn't read it. She should have controlled all the backups, but the staff wasn't competent to do that. She should have used a better OS.

The government has no record of any of them - she had sole control over what got saved and what got deleted. That's a fact and not repub BS.

is an actual, serious issue.

If a bank were to allow an employee to store confidential customer information in the same manner, it would be subject to audit findings from the OCC that involve severe penalties and fines - and that's just because of the threat of identity theft. State Department communications are orders of magnitude more sensitive and their compromise can lead directly to people dying.

I understand that you desperately want this to be a non-issue, but there is a vast chasm between what you want and what is.

the only secure server is one that is NOT hooked up to the internet.

Just because there is no absolutely perfect security, does not mean that one should eschew security measures altogether.

Clinton's home server was configured for an internet-connected printer (!). That's some seriously incompetent setup work.

Besides, from the look of it, theft by foreign agents isn't the only problem. Clinton appears to have used her private server to bypass records retention laws to obscure her activities while at State.

Again, I realize that you want to pretend there is no problem, but reality says otherwise.

there is no such thing as security....

You need to go.

/ignore list.

Geez what is with people and the ignore button?

Sensitive little babies people have become.

I could see your real points; not sure I 100% agree, but more or less.

And hey, at least he didn't alert on you.

But I highly doubt you "work in the industry" if you seriously think that she couldn't hide information by using her own server or that there was any other reason to have the server. And there is no such thing as security? Jesus, why don't we just host every government document on an unsecured completely open public domain for all to read?

Excuse Me, We've Been Hacked

The Pentagon's official acknowledgement of the data breach at Central Command occurs nearly two years after The Los Angeles Times reported the incident in November 2008.

"It's been an open secret in Washington for a long time," James Lewis, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told TechNewsWorld.

"I have no doubts about the authenticity of this account," he added.

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/70699.html

The fact that security is important means you DON'T run servers out of your house that were set up by unqualified non-IT staff. You have trained IT security analysts watching your traffic.

Her decision-making skills when it comes to national interests are therefore shown to be beyond fucked.

Hope you're enjoying the media coverage of your candidate. It will continue for a few more months at least

BTW, I AM a BIG Bernie supporter, in fact I was laughed at on this very forum in 2008 when I suggested he should run for president....

He is the only candidate I ever gave money to. Ever.

in which she handled sensitive and important official communications?

But at least one of her aides hand-copied sensitive information off one of those and emailed it to her.


http://nypost.com/2016/01/24/hillarys-team-copied-intel-off-top-secret-server-to-email/

SIPRnet is used for classified information, anyone who has access to it has a Secret (or higher) security clearance. The NIPRnet is used on most (if not all) government computers which handle unclassified (but FOUO) material, since it is unclassified it has global internet access. The SIPRnet does have internet access, but not the World Wide Web, but a government version of the internet for classified material. Its not that they are not compatible, they just dont want the two to be compatible. Same reason JWICS is not connected to SIPR, it is a top-secret run system.

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/70699.html

Excuse Me, We've Been Hacked

The Pentagon's official acknowledgement of the data breach at Central Command occurs nearly two years after The Los Angeles Times reported the incident in November 2008.

"It's been an open secret in Washington for a long time," James Lewis, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told TechNewsWorld.

"I have no doubts about the authenticity of this account," he added.

It was someone on the inside using a compromised thumb drive.



Next!!!

BTW, even as bad as that was, it was in 2008, before Hillary's term as SoS. Since then, SIPRnet has been backed up.

SIPRnet is used for classified information, anyone who has access to it has a Secret (or higher) security clearance. SIPRnet does have internet access, but not the World Wide Web, but a government version of the internet for classified material. Same reason JWICS is not connected to SIPR, it is a top-secret run system.

[div class="excerpt" style="box-shadow: 10px 10px 5px #888888;"]

May 26, 2016: Some on Clinton's campaign allegedly privately admit that Clinton tried to keep her emails from public scrutiny. Journalist Carl Bernstein says that Clinton "set up a home brew server for purposes of evading the Freedom of Information Act, evading subpoenas from Congress, that's its real purpose, to not have accountability, to not have transparency." He alleges, "if you talk to people around the Clinton campaign very quietly, they will acknowledge to you, if you are a reporter who knows some of the background, that this is the purpose of it. Is so she would not be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. So that - because the e-mails aren't there, that nobody knew about this server."

Source: The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline ©2016 #ClintonEmailTimeline
http://thompsontimeline.com/Latest_Timeline_Entries
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1605/26/nday.05.html

And shameful ignorance

about.

None of them. If people insist that they be permitted to read every little note written or received, people will just reduce drastically what is written. The best answer might be to simply refuse to have an email address.

And your government-related emails belong on the government server account.

It's really not that difficult.

All government personnel operate under those rules.

Heck, most big corporations operate under those rules, as well.

be stored with the State Department. Deciding the rules don't apply to her is not all that reassuring. We saw that with Kissinger's buddy Nixon among others. That kind of deflection is simply silly.

someone asking to read everything that Andrew Jackson wrote while serving as president.

My only point is that the result will be to reduce written messages, etc.

Kissinger seems to be the kiss of death. Probably advised her on Honduras. Lot of resemblances between Clinton and Nixon.

This isn't OPTIONAL - it's the JOB. If you don't want to comply, Don't Take The Job!

And, we should have laws that promote the public good. Discouraging people from using written communications may not be in the country's best interests.

problem. Hillary and her crack staff apparently didn't.

Hmmm.

Maybe the problem is Hillary?

has broken some rule or arguably broken some rule. This email situation has been blown completely out of proportion, in my opinion. Would you ask Sanders to terminate his campaign if it were to be discovered that he broke a rule or two?

I think that people who want to make a huge case out of this email thing should begin with a description of the real damage that has been caused by anything Clinton did. The furor seems very political and partisan. Sanders understands this. I agree with what Sanders has said, "I am sick and tired of hearing about her damn emails."

about, including members of the intelligence community and armed forces who do this stuff everyday for a living. The IT world (of which I am a member) also freaking out.

The only people who aren't are the ones who don't know the difference between "email account" and "server".

Do you know the (probably hacked, based on testimony from a hacker) server had a nice list of undercover operatives with both their code names and real named nicely indexed? Perhaps being upset about that is no big deal to you, but I'm going to assume you are where I was back in March: uninformed. I even posted "60k emails? Sounds like she was working hard!"

Of course she deleted half of them despite being asked to turn them in, but unfortunately for her, the non-security clearance company she was dealing with had backed everything up on the Cloud so now the nice people at the FBI have them all.

Now they aren't just emails - they are EVIDENCE because you aren't supposed to destroy government records.

but after reading it, I still don't know what harm has been shown to have occurred. Of course, there is possible harm. It is of course possible that someone was injured because Sanders has parked his car in the wrong parking stall at one time or another. After all this time, shouldn't someone be obligated to demonstrate that there was some actual harm before convincing themselves that the future course of our country should be significantly altered? Anything is possible. Show me the harm. If there is something there, I will consider it. Until I see harm, I see "no harm, no foul" (or no foul worth talking about).

for a position as a store manager.

Let's say you learn that one candidate you're interviewing, in her previous position as a cashier, left the till unlocked and often unattended, solely for her own convenience.

No money was shown to have been stolen, that you know of, but you know she did this repeatedly. You also know that she had repeatedly lied about it, and shows no sign of understanding why it was wrong nor does she show any sign of having learned any lessons from being called up over it. Her most memorable response is 'What difference does it make?!'

Would you hire her to manage your store?

I wouldn't care (so much) about this email debacle. I would be content to let the investigation run its course and deal with her as a private citizen.

But, as long as she is applying for the job as MY PRESIDENT, I have to (in some part) take this fiasco into consideration.

Now then THROW OUT party affiliations for a minute:

With that being said, I look at her. I look at Bernie. I look at Trump.

Trump is out.... duh. He is also under investigation

Hillary .... is also .... under .... investigation ....

Bernie ... is .... NOT .... under investigation .... wonder of wonders.

OK. I realize everyone is innocent until proven guilty but, honestly, why should I take a chance on someone who is under investigation when there is clearly a competent applicant who is NOT under investigation

Why should you take a chance on someone who is under investigation?

Because there isn't going to be a candidate who isn't under investigation. How long do you think it would be following a Sanders nomination before some right wing committee in the House began investigating his background with phony claims about nothing?
The GOP will come up with something. Remember that they pretended to believe that Obama was a Muslim, that he had no "real past" and that he was born in Africa.

UNDER investigation.

How long will it be with Bernie?

I don't know. Let's vote FOR HIM and find out how long.

You with me?

Boy, I could have been. My biggest problem with Bernie is that his decision to label himself a socialist. The traditional definition of socialism is an economy in which the government owns the major means of production - airlines, banks, insurance companies, energy companies, all large factories, etc. I don't hear Sanders calling for government takeovers of all major industries. I don't believe that he is a socialist as that term has been traditionally defined.

So, why did he tag himself as a socialist? I don't know, but I do know that it will cripple a national campaign for the presidency. If someone is going to run for president, he shouldn't hobble himself by labeling himself as a socialist, a communist, an atheist or even a Scientologist, especially if he isn't one. I just don't understand why he did that.

If someone wants to run for president, I would advise him not to call himself a Democratic socialist, a Democratic communist, a Democratic atheist or a Democratic Scientologist.

There is just no good reason for a person to call himself any kind of socialist when he isn't a socialist. I really don't understand why he did that. I have to assume that he never envisioned himself running for president.

Similarly, I would never suggest to a Republican that he/she call himself a Republican Nazi or a Republican racist. It's the latter part that stings.

Phones are not real good for things like this.

And Clinton has been slammed by the first, and is under investigation for crimes by the second.

The REASON that Clinton has been slammed for malfeasance, and is under investigation for crimes, by Obama-appointed reputable entities--the OIG, the FBI--is her incompetence, arrogance, secretiveness and lying, for starters.

Sanders has none of these flaws. He will not make an easy target for the RW morons in Congress, if they're still there, after Sanders demolishes Trump.

Sanders hasn't been vetted for 25 years like Clinton, but I do know that people claim that he honeymooned in the USSR. Don't you think that the Republicans can do something with that? Why did he choose the USSR for his honeymoon? Where exactly did he stay? Can he account for where he went and who he spoke with each day? He still has his receipts, doesn't he? I sure hope he hasn't destroyed any of that evidence! Without the receipts, there will always be questions. And every answer provides seeds for the next 15 questions. Wasn't he in Kenya when Obama was born? It doesn't matter how ridiculous it may sound, this is what happens.

Haven't you been watching what the GOP does with its opponents? He may be as clean as the Virgin Mary, but that won't even slow down the right wingers. You're just being too sensible. These guys aren't sensible or fair or honest. They just want to win and they don't care how.

...none at all. Why? Because if, as you say, the Republicans are going to investigate any Democrat who achieves the Presidency, then that particular fact is a complete wash; it does not give weight to one candidacy over the other. Either one of them WILL BE investigated.

On the other hand, Hillary is ALREADY under investigation, and not by the GOP either. Furthermore, we already know that the GOP loves nothing better than to stick it to the Clintons -- so by your reasoning, we should avoid putting her in the office, since we already know it will be an endless investigation.

Back to the drawing board...

any Democratic president will be constantly investigated and everything he does will be characterized as part of a nefarious scheme to wreck our country and its values. And, if by some miracle they don't control the Senate or the House, you will see lots of folks like Larry Klayman and Orly Taitz filing dozens of screwy lawsuits. Congressional Republicans will not cooperate in any way with anyone that is elected president as a Democrat. They become soccer players - they will wait until the president commits himself/herself to a proposal and then oppose it and it doesn't matter what the proposal might be.

...but it does not lend any weight to electing Hillary over Bernie. Is that so hard to understand?

Sheesh.

I already voted by mail in the California primary. I will be voting for the Democratic nominee in the general election. It appears that Clinton has sewed up the nomination so I expect to be voting for Clinton again in November.

I voted for Clinton in the primary. I don't see huge differences between Clinton and Sanders in terms of what they really want to do. I believe that Clinton would be more successful than Sanders in actually enacting their goals. I believe that she has more experience. She was as close to being a president as one can be without actually being a president for 8 years. I think her husband could be a valuable resource that will be available to her. If the Republicans retain control of the House or the Senate, I believe it will be difficult for either of them to enact a lot of what they would like to enact, but I suspect that Clinton might be better than Sanders at gaining some of what they want through tactical compromises. I am concerned about whether a person who uses the label socialist to describe himself can win an election for president. I recognize that he really isn't a socialist (as that term has been traditionally defined), but for some reason he tagged himself with that label and I think he will have to live with that.

I don't buy the pitch that one is a saint and that the other is evil. I think that both are human, both are decent and that neither is perfect.

...but our little discussion concerned whether or not Clinton would be a better choice than Sanders due to the fact that the Republicans will be investigating whichever Democrat becomes President.

TTFN

If "the fact that the Republicans will be investigating whichever Democrat becomes President," then if we consider that factor only, it should make no difference whom we nominate. I think that's true by definition, right? If we are only to consider a factor which all candidates share equally, then all candidates score equally well. That's simple enough.

I have multiple emails, personal and 2 businesses. It's not hard. It's WAY MORE convenient when I want to search for message threads. Easier at tax time. Hillary made a big huge booboo and cannot defend this as convenient - especially when she was told to get on board a number of times. Guess she knows how to fool her audience - pant-suited from Wallmart in the suburbs. And if you find that insulting - you should be. She has been badly informed about her base, or at least I hope that wasn't her bad judgement too.

Democratic party can put a little distance between her and us and save face.

Longer this goes on, the worse it gets.

.


The same people who jumped all over Sarah Palin's ass for using secret emails are the ones defending this.


I find that odd.


.

TOMES

TEAM SPORTS!!

"The only possible answer was to hide and obfuscate what she was doing..."

I'm compelled to conclude you know very little of servers and networks. Other than that, your magical thinking is imaginative and creative.

But, luckily, although she may often think and vote like a Republican, she has a magical D after her name, which means everything's fine.

Phew! That was close!

Not at work, could she have been effective in her job from home?

[img] [/img]

It was already there, Bill was using it for the Clinton Foundation.

wrote the code, did all the testing herself. She is brilliant like that.

Way to go Hill!!!!!!

Until recently, I was inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt because I know she is not that tech savvy.

So much wrong with this, sorry I can only trash it once.

Either one is a deal killer.

The New Yorker article put it best: she has a tendency to create scandal where none should exist and make her conduct look a lot worse than it is by being so secretive.