The Email Story Returns for Hillary Clinton
Since she apologized for having a personal email system, Hillary Clinton has had a pretty good last two weeks. She's talked policy on health care; she's racked up key endorsements; she's had a long, serious conversation with the Des Moines Register's editorial board; and she's had fun on "Ellen" and Jimmy Fallon. So it looked like she was turning the corner -- until new stories surfaced about her email system. Here's the Washington Post, calling into question her initial explanation why she turned over her emails: "Throughout the controversy over her use of a private e-mail system while she was secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton has described her decision last year to turn over thousands of work-related e-mails as a response to a routine-sounding records request... They said the request was not simply about general record-keeping but was prompted entirely by the discovery that Clinton had exclusively used a private e-mail system." And here's Bloomberg: "The FBI has recovered personal and work-related e-mails from the private computer server used by Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, according to a person familiar with the investigation." Bottom line: This entire story has continued to drip-drip for her, and Clinton's next best chance to try to COMPLETELY put it behind her is next month during her testimony before the House Benghazi committee.
The two central email questions to consider
Yet given the drip-drip nature of the entire email story -- Will we see Hillary's private emails? Does her past words match up with the actual record of events? -- as well as the constant leaks, it's important to keep these two central questions in mind:
Did hackers or foreign governments obtain classified information from her private server?
The answers to those two questions are what the FBI is looking at. If "yes," then this email story could truly jeopardize her chances of winning the White House -- let alone the Democratic nomination. If "no," then it's more than possible she can put the story behind her. But these are the two questions we should all be asking. Of course, there's one other question she hasn't sufficiently answered: Beyond convenience, why did she set up this system?
Keep throwing mud at Teflon wall.
or any other fabricated scandal, just keep throwing that proverbial mud in a futile attempt to destroy probably the best shot the Democrats have of retaining the White House.
Rinse and repeat!
But, this email issue may not be, but not for the reasons Republican are grousing about because it wasn't illegal and State allowed it (but weren't too happy about it).
The issue is: did the Russians or the Chinese hack her personal server and are just sitting on info they can use to blackmail her.
Simple rule of thumb in the IT security community:
1. The Russians hack for money, and;
2. The Chinese hack for intellectual property and/or intelligence.
I don't agree she's our best shot at the White House. Her persistent inability to allow for transparency has gotten her into this particular mess when there was absolutely no reason for it. Convenience should not outweigh national security.
The question is: What did they have access to once they hacked it?
Within large networks, layers of encryption, user permission protocols, remediation policies and required audits are implemented to protect intellectual property and intelligence. Ed Snowden, of course, showed us how easily someone on the inside with enough permissions can hack through the system, but it's still a bit harder for someone on the outside. It can be done, but it will be found and remediated.
I'm sorry, but some server sitting in the bathroom closet of someone's small, upstart business probably is not being regularly logged, monitored, patched, updated and audited for vulnerabilities.
P.S. To further my point: most small IT solutions companies who provide servers and maintenance on those servers to other small companies and individuals simply do not have an IT security expert on staff: they're too expensive. The average IT security guru demands a six-figure salary. My company, for example, is hired regularly by mid- to larger IT solutions companies to either audit their work once a year or manage their IT security entirely.
The questions not being asked in this case are:
1. Who managed Platte River Networks' security?
2. Did they have an IT security expert on-staff or did they outsource that?
3. What steps did State, the Clintons and/or Platte River Networks take to ensure that the server was logged and monitored 24/7 for attacks and regularly analyzed for latent malware, phishing exploits or other vulnerabilities?
And, that's just a start.
become the issue it is, I have zero sympathy. She is a lousy campaigner.
In fact, we haven't scratched the surface of the scandal.
The scandal, as usual, isn't what the right-wingers say it is. That part is fabricated.
The real scandal is that the US -- under Clinton, Obama, and the CIA -- was moving heavy arms out of Libya into Syria to give to the radical jihadist factions. The embassy in Libya was providing cover for that. That is what is at the core of the story. That's what we need to uncover.
reporters familiar with the Deep State are probably working on this.
I won't name names here because some people on this board absolutely blow gaskets when these reporters are mentioned. They accuse them of being right-wingers or partisans when, in fact, they are nothing of the kind: they are merely truth seekers.
sign-off on the private email server. They had no idea until they went through their records that they didn't have Hillary's emails or that she didn't have a .gov email address. This matches up with the email from the State Dept IT helpdesk that said they had no idea Hillary had a private email address.
It's quite clear that she didn't get sign-off from State before she set this system off.
The worst is that Hillary got caught in another set of lies.
I read that they knew about it, but were not fond of the idea.
The story has changed so often, it's hard to keep track.
Either way, though, it wasn't illegal at the time.
If it was illegal, why haven't people been arrested?
If you or I did something like that and it was presumed illegal, we wouldn't be out traveling the country. We'd be in jail or restricted because we were out on bail.
It took awhile to get Patreaous and his case was much clearer than Hillary's.
issue, logic dictates there is no "Teflon wall."
Really shows their fear. Fabricated scandal where months later those with bad intentions are still "asking questions." As someone who like Hillary the only redeeming factor is that people are catching on. They hate the right wing spin machine and fully understand no one has been at the end of it like Hillary. At this point the story is just proving how powerful she is and how she scares the living shit out of the right.
President Clinton, 2016 to 2024.
Email crap is all they got so of course they will keep digging up the grave to throw around dirt in all directions...with no other effect than to get voters to really think twice about how crazy the GOP have become....tick, tock on the GOP's very existence.
We all get it, it is obvious - bring Clinton down, Sanders gets the nomination, maybe....so of course the enemy of my enemy is my ally.
Did I get that right?
President Clinton 1992-2000
President * 2000-2008
President Obama 2008-2016
President Sanders 2016-2024
Now does dailynewsbin have anything about this so-called "scandal"? I think not.
We should be focused only on legitimate journalistic outlets. Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Sensible Woodchuck?
cases against her atm.
Whatever fills the headlines next month from her testimony, it will not be over.
What a great candidate we have....
That is what I continually post in many posts here for a long time now here, as what bothers me most. It is likely a Republican fantasy that Bengazi, etc. was a part of a "scandal" and that she contributed somehow to a security breakdown of private government emails.
But I think the big question as to why she moved mail to this private server (which isn't theory but a FACT that she moved this mail there) still has not been sufficiently answered. This is especially an important question in an election where we are measuring candidates as much by how honest, and consistently they are with their campaign messages over time with what they've done and will do, that drives many of us of all parties to Bernie Sanders now. This has had us frustrated even with politicians like Obama, who promised "renegotiating trade deals like NAFTA" when running for office, but pushed hard to put NAFTA on steroids TPP bill through moreso than any other legislation he's put through while in office. If Hillary wants to get some degree of the trust factor working with voters like us, she absolutely NEEDS to explain her reasons for privatizing (most of the time a Republican strategy) her government email.
Most sexual fantasies are more realistic.
I think he should be able to clear all of this up for Hillary, right?
has copped a plea in return for his testimony, this will NOT fare well for Hillary. The FBI now have the erased emails.
The Benghazi committee has already said they're working on an immunity deal. The FBI will have to agree as well, and any other groups looks for his testimony.
His lawyer has already said he will talk as long as he has full immunity.
He's the guy who left the default VPN keys installed on the server, thus exposing classified information through negligence.
There's basically 3 ways you can violate the federal laws against leaking classified information:
1) Sell classified information.
2) Give it directly to a foreign government.
3) Allow it to leak through negligence.
Notably absent is intentionally leaking information, but not for money or not directly to a foreign government. It's a big hole in the law. (Note that the UCMJ doesn't have this hole, so Manning could be prosecuted)
If Clinton and her aides included classified information in their emails, they didn't actually commit a crime - it wasn't sold, it wasn't given to a foreign government, and they thought it was secure. It's against several executive orders and could cause them to be fired and their clearance yanked, but it's not something that can land them in prison.
"Take-the-fifth guy" was negligent when setting up the security of the server. So he can be prosecuted.
the "plead the 5th guy"?
it would seem to me since she refused to use what the state department provided,she had a responsibility to make sure what she replaced it with was equal or better security wise
It's trivial to show "I reasonably expected him to be competent".
But there's more going on than a potential criminal case. Like this whole "election" thing...
That remains very low for her. This is the end result of her mishandling the email server issue.
That is the real reason why Republicans are gunning for her to win in the primaries - she is the weak link.
Who happens to be the strongest link of our 7 candidates? I'll leave that one for you to easily guess.
is what the IT security community is buzzing about.
Keeping a private server was NOT illegal when she did it, although State didn't like the idea - and for this very reason.
While all servers can be hacked, private servers, especially back then, usually have less than stellar security. I don't know what software was installed on her server, but I bet you money that the server was never (or rarely) audited for vulnerabilities and risks.
We can pretty much assume China and Russia have everything that was on the server, due to that.
There's also a typosquatter set up for spear phising attacks - someone registered clintonmail.com (no 'e' before mail).
As I mused above: I doubt her small IT solutions company knew much about IT security.
That's a rookie mistake.
Hell, even an IT solutions company should have known better than that.
It gets worse. They weren't even encrypting the connections for the first 3 months.
They're also using self-signed certs now.
I work for an IT security company in the marketing and communications department.
I wanted to state that so that no one here would think I was an expert or giving advice.
That said, I have worked in this industry for nearly 9 years, and understand these issues far better than the average person.
I admit that I haven't deep-dived into the HRC email scandal too much. My company avoids posting politically-charged stories since we're also a federal contractor, but I still hear the buzz from the experts I work with and the industry, as a whole.
However, I guess I'm going to need to start reviewing all these links so I can come up to speed on this. It seems that this server was installed and used without much thought at all to security. Even if she didn't use it in her capacity as secretary of state, you would think that, if your name is "Clinton," you'd be just a wee bit concerned about who could hack your servers.
If you have any more links, please send them. I'd appreciate that.
by the Chinese. Her ISP, Internap, appears 5 times on the list at the link below.
Who Else Was Hit by the RSA Attackers?
INTERNAP-2BLK Internap Network Services Corporation
INTERNAP-BLK Internap Network Services Corporation
INTERNAP-BLK Internap Network Services Corporation
INTERNAP-BLK3 Internap Network Services Corporation
INTERNAP-BLOCK-4 Internap Network Services Corporation
At the end of the victim list is a pie chart that shows the geographic distribution of the command and control networks used to coordinate the attacks. The chart indicates that the overwhelming majority of the C&Cs are located in or around Beijing, China.
I'm so grateful for yet another opportunity to reflect on whether it makes a damned bit of difference to anyone but Clinton haters on how Clinton's emails were handled.
I'm verklempt.....talk amongst yourselves.
who gives a shit if our next President has a documented history of making poor decisions? It's her turn!
Multiple other SoS guilty of same.
I hope you hold your guy to the same standard:
Take your snark somewhere else. Try researching your candidate instead of trolling threads. Bernie did great things in Burlington, but clearly his first shot was a swing and a miss. Does that mean he has bad judgement? No, it means he made a mistake.
At least I do my homework. I don't judge a candidate based on a few mistakes that people want to troll around forever. Trust me the one above isn't the only one he made.
Take a civics class or something...people aren't perfect.
There are plenty of reasons to choose someone over Hillary. This just isn't one of them IMO:
He was not aware of any restrictions nor does he recall being made aware of any over the four years he served at State, the statement says. He sent emails to his staff generally via their State Department email addresses. These emails should be on the State Department computers. He might have occasionally used personal email addresses, as he did when emailing to family and friends.
This is another example of Hillary's inability to use sound judgment. That is just one of the MANY reasons that I do not support her.
If the Russians or the Chinese have sensitive information on her that they can used to blackmail her, she may not go to jail for it, but would you want someone who can be easily blackmailed as Commander in Chief or appointing our national security echelons?
who might not be happy to have Chinese and Russian spies know where they're going, how and when they're getting there, and where they will be staying.
Steven's evacuation plans.
By the time that info is public, security is already laid down and in place. Not beforehand, while they're discussing which hotels to book and which flights to take.
Quick, tell me what flight number and which plane John Kerry's going to be on the next trip he takes.
You don't know, do you?
But, if you were reading Huma's emails while camping out on Hillary's server, you might.
The Chinese and Russians have been hacking into sensitive government servers for a long time.
Electric infrastructure in 2009:
Here's one with a graph that shows we do it too:
The Chinese and Russians have plenty of information on plenty of people.
I have no problem with people not liking HRC. I have issues with her myself.
However, parading this faux scandal around like it means something is just ludicrous.
they 1. know what info has been accessed and 2. can upgrade security to prevent future incursions.
On the other hand, Clinton's ISP was hacked by the Chinese in 2011, and there may be no way to know how much, if any, data from the Clinton's server was compromised.
determination to keep a non-scandal alive on the respirator.
I give you credit for the effort.
Personally, I would rather focus on something more compelling, say this:
I started out not wanting a family dynasty white house. And concerned about Clinton fatigue after 8 years of nonstop scandals.
I've ended up very unhappy with Candidate Hillary, who has repeated demonstrated very, very poor judgement, imo. And even when she changes a position, manages to make it somebody else's fault that she voted the wrong way.
I addressed this and I know better than you. I work in IT security, for Pete's sake.
Yes, they have been hacking into our servers for years, but there are layers of encryption, user classifications, logging, monitoring, remediation and regular assessments that protect classified information. Just because you're in the State Department's HR files doesn't mean you can access the classified information. Servers are like big houses. I may be able to get into the living room through an unlocked window, but that doesn't mean I can get into the safe with its additional security and guard dogs.
The Chinese might be able to read how much John Smith is paid or how many vacation days he's taken because the HR "room" is easier to get into, but they won't be able to read our strategic goals for Syrian rebels since that "room" is walled off behind even more security.
From what I've read, Hill's IT Solutions provider did not even provide basic IT security for her server. My 8 year old could probably hack that. I know my 16 year old could.
I supervised IT security...big deal.
I know enough to know that people that claim anything is safe have no idea what they are talking about.
And so what if her security sucked. So did her predecessors....that's the point!
It may have sucked but it's NOT A CAMPAIGN ISSUE unless you are pre-disposed to hate Hillary.
Enjoy your rage, lol.
By "supervised," do you mean you were an average IT director who installed firewalls and encryption? Or were you actually trained in network security. There is chasms of differences.
But, if you were still in the businesses, you'd know that IT security has changed drastically since her predecessors were in office and it's changed since then.
Enjoy being an ostrich!
You are something..a lot higher than IT director.
I love the ostrich comment too...the one who says nothing is certain has their head in the sand and the one who exhibits absolute certainty is seeing straight as an arrow.
Bush / Cheney would have loved you....
So you're a C-Level - doesn't mean you know security. You don't. I can tell.
And calling me right wing proves it. I'm to your left, dear.
Not wanting to post your job on the internet is not avoiding...it's prudent.
I don't care if you consider yourself to my left...doesn't make you right on this issue.
The "I can tell" snark is so Sanders supporter....enjoy your certainty.
It's not how the emails were sent, it's how the server was set up, which is the real problem, which leaves me troubled about Clinton.
It shows her poor judgment on how she handled the whole thing from the beginning when she ordered the new server for her house, and the competency of her IT guy.
I'm an IT guy, and even I HAVE security protocols to follow when setting things up - and it's my own company.
Seems it wasnt that unusual and made sense at the time. Hindsight she shouldnt have done but its not really a big deal to me as long she wasnt purposely hiding illegal activity.
Also, the SoS's you cite didn't have classified in their "personal" accounts. At least, as far as we know.
What was the motivation? I assume it was simply to keep as much control as possible and stop prying eyes... no doubt there were many who would have loved to get access to her communications and use that against her. Maybe she was guilty of being too paranoid... beyond that I dont see the big deal.
HILLARY 2016: Republicans Did It Too
And the last time I looked, Jeb has not yet held a sensitive Federal Gov position with direct access to Top Secret/Sensitive data.
So no, not quite. But nice try.
as long as they didnt contain sensitive/secret information. So unless they find something of that nature then its a non-issue. And in fact it must be proven she knowingly mishandled the emails to be charged with anything..
"Clinton is not accused of any wrongdoing. She has said she is confident that material in her e-mails wasnt marked as classified when it was sent and received through her server. For anyone who mishandled such information, prosecutors must prove that they knowingly did so to charge them with a crime."
Unless they have some firm proof I think she's clear.
At the very least, she showed poor judgement in using an unsecure private server for herself and her staff to do sensitive government work, and for no goddam good reason.
There is a reason why the FBI is now going through tens of thousands of emails, and it's not for fun and giggles.
You can think whatever you want. I think she showed incredibly poor judgement and I don't think she used a private server for "convenience," nor do I think "convenience" is an acceptable reason to risk national security. I also sincerely doubt she hired a personal IT worker to save the government a few dollars.
It's all about power, avoiding any kind of oversight or historical record outside of her control. And I personally consider her unfit for office as a result.
Maybe you should take your complaints up with the Serious People?
"Berniebunchers" don't matter anyway, right?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Most reporters don't.
No surprise there.
For Democrats, that is. Reagan used Iran-Contra to establish a second, secret government, and he never suffered a moment's pain for that breathtaking violation of the constitution. If a Democrat has oral sex and lies about it, he's impeached.
It's interesting how this story is creeping back, presented as if there is some damning new information. It looks to me like the same old thing, warmed up in the microwave. Well, leftovers can be delicious.
to be forced out of office due to a scandal was a Republican and yes 1974 was a long time ago, but scandals do have power to damage Presidents, their successors and candidates running for office.
I believe Reagan skated for two primary reasons, he hid behind Oliver North's Marine Corps uniform all but carrying the Stars and Stripes into the Congress, and the corporate media only echoed style over substance in their coverage.
Also the Republicans in general and some non-partisans were still emotionally damaged from Nixon's recent humiliation and they weren't going to let it happen again.
This e-mail story will keep "creeping back" at least so long as the FBI is investigating it.
If so, I would like to see transcripts of those from the Condi Rice/Bush era.