Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Hillary's Email Scandal for Non-Techy People [View all]IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)175. From the Original Post -
I have deliberately NOT included links for ease of reading, but will reference them in Replies/ask that those with other evidence to help with clarification in those sub threads.
My original plan was to do 18 separate replies with the links to the sources in them so people could add and discuss. Then things got busy, and I just started doing the ones that people were specifically asking about.
This is all information that has been publicly reported, and is available here on DU. I tried to make it "make sense" for normal (non-tech) people.
For example, The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html says
...officials took no steps to protect the server against intruders and spies, because they apparently were not told about it.
(snip)
The server was nothing remarkable, the kind of system often used by small businesses, according to people familiar with its configuration at the end of her tenure. It consisted of two off-the-shelf server computers. Both were equipped with antivirus software. They were linked by cable to a local Internet service provider. A firewall was used as protection against hackers.
(snip)
Four computer-security specialists interviewed by The Post said that such a system could be made reasonably secure but that it would need constant monitoring by people trained to look for irregularities in the servers logs.
For data of this sensitivity . . . we would need at a minimum a small team to do monitoring and hardening, said Jason Fossen, a computer-security specialist at the SANS Institute, which provides cybersecurity training around the world.
(snip)
Security remained a constant concern. On June 28, 2011, in response to reports that Gmail accounts of government workers had been targeted by online adversaries, a note went out over Clintons name urging department employees to avoid conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.
But she herself ignored the warning and continued using her BlackBerry and the basement server.
Became this (using ... To focus on just this bit as an example)
5) What exactly did Hillary do?
She put government records (her work email) in her basement. ... And she did not make "super sure" bad people (hackers and spies) could not see the government records that were about national security.
And
10) How do you know her email wasn't safe? It was on a server, right?
It was on two different servers ... neither was being monitored by the IT Anti-Spying Team that the government uses. Keeping hackers away from government secrets is a little more complicated than remembering to upgrade your anti-virus protections if you are viewing this on the internet, you know what I mean.
I hope that makes sense.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
198 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It's actually unbelievable. Keystone Kops in a way. Secretary of State, FFS.
CentralCoaster
Apr 2016
#27
IdaBroggs, this is a concise explanation! Well done! However, I think you should add...
FourScore
Apr 2016
#69
ANALYSIS: No, Hillary Clinton Did Not Commit a Crime ... at Least Based on What We Know Today
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#101
That is not a good analysis. You can get ten years for leaving secret docs on a bar stool.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#139
Here's something I learned . . . there are NO government documents marked "classified"
pdsimdars
Apr 2016
#72
"Some Or All" Of Clinton Emails Designated SAP Referenced Public Information About U.S. Drone Strike
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#140
No. Much of the TS classified material was NSA information dealing with events in Libya.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#151
What I see: of 127 Sid emails, only one appears to have been partial redacted by the Comm.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#194
There was one email where a name was redacted unnecessarily. You failed to make your case here.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#196
I am amused that you actually think that you understand the legal concepts being discussed
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#184
Delighted you are amused. But, again you err. Petraeus' binders weren't marked classified, but
leveymg
Apr 2016
#185
Nowhere does that state that his books were marked classifed; Sec 1924 and 793 r different statutes
leveymg
Apr 2016
#188
I thought DiFi was busy lying to the American people about the wretched effects legal weed is having
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2016
#163
This is one of those bait and switch analyses. Doesn't mention Sec. 793 the statute most
leveymg
Apr 2016
#145
I make a living parsing federal and state statutes for things such as intent and mens rea.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#154
There are six separate crimes under 793. (e) and (f) do not require specific intent
leveymg
Apr 2016
#161
When was the last time that you or someone you knew had just one FBI agent investigating personaly
nolabels
Apr 2016
#99
GOP created this story, and did so to try and destroy Hillary Clinton's chances to be president.
Jackie Wilson Said
Apr 2016
#80
They didn't create *the facts* of what she did, which apparently warrant investigation, at a minimum
JudyM
Apr 2016
#84
He brought approx 150 emails when he was subpoenaed by the Benghazi committee.
IdaBriggs
Apr 2016
#88
TRUE: "The mere fact that it exists was a breach of security with potential consequences."
IdaBriggs
Apr 2016
#29
You can carry the conservative Republican water all you like, won't make this issue more palatable
Tarc
Apr 2016
#68
No, TARC is a liberal, a Democrat who supports the party and is aware
Jackie Wilson Said
Apr 2016
#81
So you openly have hatred for the Democratic Party, noted. I know why
Jackie Wilson Said
Apr 2016
#92
That is ludicrous. Which of us will vote to prevent women from dying from self abortions?
Jackie Wilson Said
Apr 2016
#94
That is not the point, is it. Your attitude is carried with you everywhere you go.
Jackie Wilson Said
Apr 2016
#105
Really, your very negative attitude about Hillary is only expressed here on DU?
Jackie Wilson Said
Apr 2016
#109
Again, categorically false, per the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.
IdaBriggs
Apr 2016
#133
Sticking to the facts is a great idea-why don't you provide the sourcing for your so-called facts?
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#134
I'm ready for it to wrap up. Surely they have enough of whatever they're looking for. Let's do this!
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
Apr 2016
#43
She wanted a custom ultra secure BlackBerry like Barak's and they would not give her one.
gordianot
Apr 2016
#56
Thank you and bookmarking :) - Hillary's Email Scandal for Non-Techy People nt
slipslidingaway
Apr 2016
#48
I've seen a number of videos on this and this looks like a great job. . . THANKS!
pdsimdars
Apr 2016
#71
The fact that you are not disclosing your sourcing is all anyone needs to reject this sad OP
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#110
I like complicated which which is why I sourced each and every one of my posts
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#135
Government Officials: None Of The Emails Were Marked As "Classified" When They Were Sent.
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#130
The fact that you have no sourcing for your silly and false claims is sad but amusing
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#171
Guccifer took screen shots/made copies of Hillary & Sidney Blumenthal's email.
IdaBriggs
Apr 2016
#166
Yes, it helps a lot. What a bizarre twist to an already convoluted
Land of Enchantment
Apr 2016
#182
Condoleezza Rice Aides, Colin Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Emails
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#127