Clinton Home Servers Had Ports Open (ap.org) 470
Jim Efaw writes: Hillary Clinton's home servers had more than just the e-mail ports open directly to the Internet. The Associated Press discovered, by using scanning results from 2012 "widely available online", that the clintonemail.com server also had the RDP port open; another machine on her network had the VNC port open, and another one had a web server open even though it didn't appear to be configured for a real site. Clinton previously said that her server featured "numerous safeguards," but hasn't explained what that means. Apparently, requiring a VPN wasn't one of them.
so first she claims there was no server (Score:5, Insightful)
now claims the server was secured.
either of these claims disproves the other. You cannot have secured what does not exist.
Interesting how the debate has shifted away from the lies and denials in public of this, but into the content and construction.
It's like any of us being caught with a machine gun illegally in our possession but turning the debate away from the law we broke having it into whether or not it was loaded and what type of ammo, as if that made any difference.
Re:so first she claims there was no server (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither excludes the other: A non-existing server is secure. A secure server doesn't exist.
Re:so first she claims there was no server (Score:5, Funny)
I approve this message.
Re:so first she claims there was no server (Score:5, Informative)
More appropriately secure is a relative term. Take the US justice system it is secure for the rich because they mostly get off and it is secure for the rich because the poor mostly get convicted, so it is secure in one regard. So the mail servers were secure, they kept private questionable communiques away from investigatory eyes and should push come to shove they could be 'hmm' be edited prior to handover, so yes quite emphatically they were 'secured'. Just they way the politically corrupt would like them secured and generally not the way the informed public would like them secured (no lost communiques). Keep in mind the era and how other corporate emails from the likes of M$ and HP were being obtained by the courts and becoming part of court battles (leading to regular email auditing and deletions to ensure safer track records for court proceedings). The intent is clear, that they conspired to cheat government record keeping systems, it is also clear and that government officers were brought into the conspiracy was also clear, hence many laws were most emphatically broken and should be deserving of investigation and prosecution. Whether or not the 'remaining?' emails show secured data on the laws or criminal intent is arbitrary, the crime had already been committed in conspiring to intentionally thwart government record keeping of government communiques.
Re:so first she claims there was no server (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a case of rich people and their lawyers. It's a case of political cronyism. She is being protected.
In the time it took to go from "No server, nope, never happened" to "It was secured and no one broke in", General Petraeus was investigated, tried and convicted by the Obama Justice Department.
Re:so first she claims there was no server (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:so first she claims there was no server (Score:4, Informative)
Well done, you've demolished a straw man.
What straw man? The A/C asserted that she claimed there was no server. That was false. I called him on it. If it's "no issue" why are so many people here claiming she said it? Seems like too many people are taking provably false accusations as fact.
BTW - You left out her claims regarding classified information that have gone up in flames.
I didn't "leave out" anything. I don't feel the compulsive need to go off into non sequiturs whenever it looks like a Clinton hasn't been accused of enough today. The A/C claimed she claimed there was no server. I called him on it. You agreed with me that Hillary is innocent of that accusation. That's all. No need to turn into a raving mad lunatic.
Re:so first she claims there was no server (Score:4, Insightful)
Even funnier about the classified information thing is that as Secretary of State, she is an original classification authority, which means that even if the information isn't marked classified, she is supposed to be able to say something should be classified.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the... [whitehouse.gov]
She emailed around classified information, and she should have known it was classified, that is a serious felony, and if it were you or I, we would already be in jail waiting for the federal court to hear our case.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no proof she had a server. No one except the people that hate women are claiming that. You are falling for the Republican's war on women.
They're all part of the Vast Right-Wing CONSPIRACY!
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure the whole family throwing food at you would be the most difficult part to orchestrate.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is anyone making a fuss over Hilaries private e-mail server. Gov't comms are a mess. and then there's GWB43.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Oh, I remember. I wasn't happy about that, just as I'm not happy about what Secretary Clinton did. Secretiveness and corruption are not limited to any one party.
Re:does no one recall gwb43.com (Score:5, Insightful)
Government officials have been doing this for years (remember Sarah Palin's personal email being accessed? and the guy going to prison for it?), but it's always been done with a veneer of technological ignorance that gives them a little bit of plausibility. Almost every single one of them that has happened so far has been able to shrug their shoulders and say "ha ha, email, who knows how that stuff works! it's magic!", and between their age (GWB was born in 1946, for example) and the general time period (before smartphones even existed) they were able to claim this without any hint of being deceitful.
Hillary has tried to do this while simultaneously setting up her own server! How fucking dumb does she think people are to believe her saying things like "wipe the server? what, like, with a cloth?" after having ordered the construction and curation of her own private email server? A server which, while in vague legal territory, serves no purpose other than to give herself control over her communication because of her political ambitions?
There's no deniability here. She can't claim that some boffin came to her and said that this would be a good idea and she rubberstamped it without any scrutiny. She can't claim to have ordered its creation and been ignorant as to what it was capable of because its very purpose of existence was to communicate outside of official channels. She can't claim to be ignorant about classification status of information because, as Secretary of State, she's one of the fucking root authorities!
Everything about this is her bending the rules for her own personal benefit and not caring about what the consequences are and blatantly lying about it afterwards with the implication that she should get away with it because, otherwise, it might ruin her chances at election. Sorry, but no thanks. If anyone posting here on /. did anything similar to this, not only would you never work for the US government again, but you'd probably have to sit in a federal prison for a decade before you got the chance to have your resumes thrown in the garbage.
Government communication are certainly a mess, and we probably know that more than anybody, but having anyone who feels like it set up their own VPS or whatever to deal with the problem is a step in the opposite direction. Anyone in any kind of administrator role should cringe at the thought of that. Anyone who excuses this kind of basic technological ignorance as a justifiable reason for breaches of trust and security should be laughed out of the room, as well. Email is not some new-fangled crazy technology, as it's been known and used by the general public for at least 20 years, and anyone who continues to enable the willful ignorance of an older generation like this is only serving to cause clusterfucks like communications in government in the first place.
You should be linking things like that and demanding more accountability, not using it as some flimsy excuse for more shit behavior.
Re: (Score:3)
In my opinion it's not possible to use email in a way where hosting your own server is responsible for mishandling of classified information.
Either the classified message is encrypted and the email server's security is moot or the classified message is not encrypted and the sender is mishandling the information in the first place by sending it in clear text over the internet, regardless of where the server is hosted.
I would not be surprised if she used her own email server to get around government record ke
Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm preparing my suicide potion tonight... :(
Re:Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump? (Score:5, Interesting)
Keep a stiff upper lip and don't mix the poison yet... It's way too early to be trying to read the poll numbers/tea leaves. We have a LONG time before the first vote is cast. A lot can happen in 4 months, especially given that the campaigns haven't really geared up yet.
Now if we hit middle January and the first three primary state's polls show it's Clinton/Trump, it's going to get interesting. But I'm willing to bet, one or both of the current "front runners" will be out of the top 2, if not totally out of the race. The alternative possibilities boggle the mind though. Can you imagine a Sanders/Christy race? That'd be bloody... How about Biden/Carson? We'd die of boredom before the election...
Re: (Score:2)
My fear is that this becomes a Jeb vs Bernie race, which would all but give us Bush trifecta.
Re:Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump? (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't worry. The Democratic party is still working hard to set up the Clinton coronation.
As long as the boat isn't rocked too much, Clinton is our winner in this election.
That could change if they managed to indict Clinton somehow, or Biden joined the race. I don't think Bernie, on his own, will be able to unseat Clinton.
That said, I am not sure that Jeb would beat Bernie. On the other hand, Bernie would get exactly nothing done unless they seriously changed the make-up of Congress.
The Republicans are in a bad state, but they'd re-unite to deal with a President Sanders. An actual socialist is probably something they hate even more than each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting nothing done in congress is a win for me. Having opposing legislative and executive branches ensure slowness.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
As a logical, thinking human being, I would take almost anyone other than Sanders. His entire campaign is a bunch of populist promises akin to Homer Simpson when he ran for Sanitation Commissioner. And don't presume the Democrats can't find some new darling like they did with Obama.
If Biden even has a chance at being elected president it is because everyone just wants to hear the insane shit he'll say.
Help us Gary Johnson. You're our only hope.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I hate to break it to you, Biden is going to be in this race. You can count on it. The question I have is why the heck is he waiting to jump in?
One possibility is that he sees it being too soon. He still thinks it is to his advantage to be high in the polls and not actually be IN the race officially. I can see this being true, because as long as he's not in the race officially, he's not a big target because he's not a threat, so he won't be taking "friendly fire" from Hillary and Sanders who will be foc
Re:Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would he, at his age? At this point in his life, he gets to be the cool laid back uncle democrat (forget that whole writing the Patriot Act thing and other skeletons). People will buy him a beer, ask him to campaign around the country, pay him a hundred thousand to give a speech....dude's got it made. He's going to be a rich assed fuck for the rest of his life - not as rich as the Clinton's, or as rich as Obama will be, but the guy has it made.
Why throw that way for a year of high-stress campaigning, and then four years of governing? No, Biden only enters the race if Hillary implodes, and the DNC needs an equally corrupt supporter of the status quo, but one that actually has a personality, to come to the rescue.
Re:Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump? (Score:5, Insightful)
LOL, you are right on that...
The Clintons are not perfect, both Bill and Hillary have done some really nasty things, but they excel in twisting their way out of it. They are obviously good at it given how many times they've successfully managed to do it. I don't expect that this E-mail thing will stick to her, or she'd be in handcuffs already. Some staffers might get shuffled off to jail, but I'd be REALLY surprised if Hillary catches much more than she already has...
However, don't take my opinion as fact... I thought Trump would be done with his little game campaign in his second week.... I was seriously mistaken, much to my dismay...
Re: (Score:2)
You really think that JEB! has any real chance of getting the nomination?
Re:Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not an American, so I'm not really that interested, but I would watch a debate between the top campaign donors for each candidate...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump won't happen. If he somehow kept it together enough to get a plurality of primary delegates, two or more of the other candidates would pool their own delegates to win at the convention. Trump does well in polling, but I don't think he's very popular with the party faithful, nor do I think his kind of supporter is the type who typically shows up at the ballot.
Don't trust the gov to use good technical solution (Score:4, Interesting)
When it comes to building, or using, or setting up software for consumer use, it just sucks. They often have a bidding contract and hand it out to whomever pays the least.
Hillary isn't a techie, she simply reiterates what she is told about things like this. All this shows is that politicians need additional training on the proper way to handle security and privacy. Clinton's mistake is she tried a "do it yourself" or "hire someone yourself" approach, which in some areas isn't a good idea unless you really know what you are doing.
Re:Don't trust the gov to use good technical solut (Score:4, Insightful)
I really hope that this isn't an apology for Hillary.
The worst part are all the relatively smart people who are excusing this, simply because she has a (D) after her name. All I have to say, is if this were Jeb, he would be in jail already.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I really hope that this isn't an apology for Hillary.
If it's an apology, it would be for more than Hillary. Colin Powell [wsj.com] also used a private e-mail for state-department business.
The worst part are all the relatively smart people who are excusing this, simply because she has a (D) after her name.
Colin Powell does not have a (D) after his name.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Colin Powell used a PUBLIC email server, not a private one. Slightly different, and enough different that it matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Colin Powell used a PUBLIC email server, not a private one. Slightly different, and enough different that it matters.
It matters in what way?
Private and public servers both have their pros and cons. I suspect you'll just select the ones that support your side of the argument.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Colin Powell has also said he had two machines in his office, one for secure government correspondence (which is also subject to FOIA requests) and the other for his personal email account -- I believe this is vary much different then Hillary who only had a personal email account and stored all correspondence (government or not) on a largely un-secure personal server. While she "might" have successfully "wiped" this server, I am sure numerous state actors have the full monty (so to speak), and for a price..
Re:Don't trust the gov to use good technical solut (Score:4, Informative)
Are you conveniently forgetting that Jeb did literally the exact same thing? He had a personal server, then decided what to forward for state archives and deleted the rest.
And so did Christie
And so did Jindal
And so did Rubio
And so did Huckabee
And while they no longer candidates, so did Perry
And so did Walker
I'm not excusing Hillary, because she did fail to follow security protocols. But lets not pretend that she's in some rare company, and lets not pretend that state level governments operate with complete transparency and that state governors could never possibly discuss classified or secret information under any circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
No, if it was Jeb there'd just be a different set of relatively smart people excusing it because of the (R) after his name. Bipartisan partisan hackery is a two-sided coin.
Re: (Score:2)
This gets a pass from (D) because it's obviously a political w
Re: (Score:2)
All I have to say, is if this were Jeb, he would be in jail already.
Jail is for little people. Nothing would change if it were Jeb in trouble instead.
Re:Don't trust the gov to use good technical solut (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, you misunderstand me. I am only referring to the incident listed in the article. I have not researched the topic enough to pass judgement on her other actions.
Re: (Score:2)
None of what you said was true.
Re:Don't trust the gov to use good technical solut (Score:5, Insightful)
> I'm saying she did something stupid, not malicious.
Leaving out that setting up a server to bypass public records laws is inherently malicious as far as the public interest goes, even if setting it up wasn't malicious, repeatedly lying to us about it most certainly is malicious. The fact that they can convince a non-trivial faction of America of non-factual things is a serious problem. It will continue to be a problem whether it's being abused by Ds or Rs and it was just as bad when the Rs were doing it and I was complaining about them.
If we want a responsible government, we can't let them off the hook when they deliberately and knowingly subvert the accountability rules, no matter which faction they belong to. If nobody can be held accountable, then the government controls us when it's supposed to be the other way around in a democracy.
Re:Don't trust the gov to use good technical solut (Score:5, Funny)
But don't you realize that leaving a port open on her home server makes her history's greatest monster? Clearly, you're not paying attention to the GOP debates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While Petraeus did get dealt with relatively lightly, he resigned his job, and his government career is over. He also accepted the judgement of the system on what he did.
Note that Snowden fled before he could be dealt with by the system. So we don't actually know how he would have been dealt with. Right now, he's basically a fugitive. Would Petraeus have been less of a fugitive if he ran off with his journalist girlfriend to Russia to avoid prosecution?
I do agree that an arrest is very unlikely, but if
Re: (Score:3)
I know its not exactly the same thing, but for the relatively smart people in both Parties, she is rather equal in embarrassment quotient to Trump.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Or Powell and Rice each running their own servers while serving as Sec of State, which they both wiped clean upon leaving office.
Odd that the Fox fans seem unaware and uninterested in this- but Hillary doing it is literally Hitler.
Re: (Score:2)
Governor Sarah Palin wasn't privy to classified information.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
> I seem to recall Governor Sarah Palin using her yahoo email account for official business and not ending up in jail
It's a pity they haven't enforced these things more strongly.
But all the politicians love hiding from accountability....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, they found exactly the opposite when the (D) operative hacked her account and they actually found nothing. But keep reading the DailyKos and HuffPo ... they never lie.
Re: (Score:3)
As I recall, you're right, the email account was used for little of import, but I don't think it was hacked by some nefarious (D) operative. Wasn't it just some guy on a forum that guessed her password reset answers based on publicly available information?
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton's mistake is she tried a "do it yourself" or "hire someone yourself" approach
Hillary's servers were not totally secure, but were they more or less secure than the State Dept's servers?
Is there anyone who cares about this issue that didn't already hate Hillary for other reasons?
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary tried to "do it herself" when it was against protocol to do it any way but through government channels. Let's not forget that part.
Re: (Score:2)
were they more or less secure than the State Dept's servers?
There is a difference, and if you can't see the difference you're the worst kind of apologist.
The difference is, in case you're wondering, is that we'll never know the state of Hillary's server. Which is, absolutely worse. And if you're assuming the best case, the answer is still no, it wasn't, and we have proof of that already (Server housed in a Denver Apt bathroom!).
I'm guessing, this is your version of "What difference does it matter, at this point?"
It's a conspiracy (Score:2)
That's a good point. Someone else [go.com] registered clintonemail.com (along with wjcoffice.com, and presidentclinton.com) with the Clintons' home in Chappaqua, New York as the contact address. Then all they had to do was convince a bunch of people like Sidney Blumenthal [wikipedia.org] that it was her email and years later they could create a minor scandal for her, after she'd already lost in the primaries to Obama.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing, this is your version of "What difference does it matter, at this point?"
More like, "She didn't break a law, so stop spending millions of taxpayer's dollars investigating her."
Re: (Score:2)
Is there anyone who cares about this issue that didn't already hate Hillary for other reasons?
Do such people actually exist, or was your question rhetorical?
Of course. She's smart, certainly well qualified, and constantly shooting herself in the foot.
With credentials like that, the list of folks who dislike her is long enough to be confused with a LOTR script.
Except for a Socialist from the Green Mountain State, no competition for the Dem nod has yet materialized. Maybe tonight.
Clinton hired a buddy (Score:2)
Clinton hired a buddy to do it. This wasn't a government server, this was her own.
Re: (Score:2)
Hill's problem was that using a PERSONAL E-mail account as part of her OFFICIAL duties as Secretary of State was NOT ALLOWED both by State Department Policy and by the records retention laws and she knew it (She reprimanded one of her Ambassadors for doing the same thing). Who knows why, but she decided the rules didn't apply to her, or she didn't care.
If that wasn't bad enough, somehow she started sending/receiving classified information though this very same server. I'll put the classified information
Of course... (Score:4, Insightful)
...the point is her fundamental dishonesty, disregard for the rules that apply to 'little people', and flippant mendacity when it came to being confronted on the subject.
Of course, flagrant violation of security rules like this would get you or me thrown in prison.
As much as the Republican presidential contest is a clown car, the Democrats have perhaps an even more difficult choice: goofy or sleazy, pick one.
I did finally hear a good reason to vote for Trump, for once:
http://i.imgur.com/wVkmhzL.png [imgur.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That is the issue for me.
She is supposed to be so smart yet she did not think that the Secretary of State would be handing confidential / secret / top secret information via email?
Yes, it is a political attack by the Republicans. But that does not change the fact that her actions were stupid UNLESS they were to hide something.
Between Trump and Clinton, I'd have to vote Clinton. But I'm still campaigning for Sanders or Lessig.
Re: (Score:2)
As much as the Republican presidential contest is a clown car, the Democrats have perhaps an even more difficult choice: goofy or sleazy, pick one.
I'll take goofy or sleazy over the flat-out mess that is the Republican field.
About the only thing the Republicans have going for them right now is that nobody's giving them any serious scrutiny, because everyone's pretty much in agreement that the whole thing is a complete and utter farce.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep repeating the lie.
Why is this about security? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it was the kind of illegal that would get, for instance, me sent away for a long time.
People go to jail for playing fast and loose with classified material. And it's not like she didn't know better. Secretary of State wasn't her first government job (yes, Senators have to deal with this stuff too), or even her first exposure to security rules (yes, the First Lady has to deal with this sort of thing too)....
Re: (Score:2)
Except he didn't.
http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com]
It's called (Score:5, Funny)
Transparency.
numerous security features (Score:5, Funny)
Clinton previously said that her server featured "numerous safeguards," but hasn't explained what that means.
Some of the numerous security technologies employed include "theater" and "through obscurity".
Bill was good at compromising open 'ports' (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Boo. Get off the stage.
You could have made a joke of there being a defensive tactical snuke in her open 'port', but noo.
A "mistake" worth firing . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you work for General Motors? Reuters? John Deere? DuPont? Exxon Mobile? Pfizer? Ford? IBM? Amazon? HP? General Food? Walmart? Apple? General Electric? AT&T? Boeing? Proctologist and Gamble? UPS? Disney? Lockheed Martin? Oracle? Philip Morris? Macy's? NIke? McDonald's? Staples? Whirlpool? Goodyear Tire and Rubbers (wink, wink)? United States Steel? . . . etc., etc., etc.
If you worked for any big company, and set up your own email server to do company business . . . your testicles would be deep fried and hung up as pinatas. For most dorks in the US, they do not understand what setting up your own email server, of dubious security and audibility. For us IT professionals, Obama issuing another "Executive Administrative" decree that retroactively declares Hilary's email server as safe . . . well, that sounds and smells like shit to me . . .
Re: (Score:3)
Shameless Plug - How about the current sites? (Score:2, Informative)
I looked at all the current presidential candidates websites to see how good their security/tech was:
https://bryanquigley.com/polit... [bryanquigley.com]
In summary:
Epic fail - Jim Gilmore, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki
IPv6 - Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio.
Complicated Setups - Clinton and Christie
CloudFlare and WordPress are popular
Open Borders (Score:2)
Seriously, port scan data from 2012? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is this the best you can do to try to keep the "scandal" alive? Just because the RDP port is open doesn't mean it's actually RDP running on the port. I used to run SSH on the telnet port. And just because the IP shows as from the same server doesn't mean it is. Lots of people use DMZ's with port forwarding to isolate servers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is this the best you can do to try to keep the "scandal" alive? Just because the RDP port is open doesn't mean it's actually RDP running on the port.
I do serious IT work as my job. Obviously, you don't. If one of my sysadmins left that port open, he would be fired. Yes, we run a port scanner on all our servers to make sure that they are clean . . . squeaky clean. This is just standard procedure in most serious IT shops.
Whatever you do in yours . . . well, that will be your problem.
It's a honeypot! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Allow me to quote our future president [and inevitable Nobel Prize winner] and allow you to draw your own conclusions:
Re: (Score:2)
Even I know that was supposed to be a humorous quip, avoiding answering the question. She won't say the server was wiped, because that is bad optics during a presidential race, but it was, she (via her "team) has admitted to it.
The question is, how many people would still vote for her simply because she has a (D) behind her name? That is the really sorry state of our politics.
Re: (Score:2)
"simply because she has a (D) behind her name"
and female plumbing
Re: (Score:3)
Bill Clinton can rape people, and it is okay,
Who did Bill rape?
You are making lots of wild acusations, but I see nothing in support of them. Did I miss this week's Conspiracy Times?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So there's one rape allegation there. Which firstly is "a person" not "people", and secondly is merely an allegation by someone who has given multiple inconsistent versions of the story.
Re:FIRST! (Score:4, Funny)
Windows Server and Network Solutions (Score:5, Informative)
I hope she was using Windows, we all know how hardened that is.
Not only was she running Windows Server (according to the AP article), but she was using Network Solutions for her registrar, even after the U.S. Postal Service and several other large institutions had their NetSol domains slammed to a registrar in the British Virgin Islands against their will; and for some reason the clintonemail.com IP address was changed to that same company in 2011 [theblaze.com]. (This, of course, years and years after anyone with tech experience had dropped Network Solutions.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
:)
Nice to see their replacement for Bohner accidentally tell the truth; I bet there was a lot of shit hit the floor when that got out.
I can't wait for the next attack; I was hoping I could get a sound bite of McCarthy calling Hillary a communist, but I guess I won't get a chance now. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Because Benghazi! Benghzai! Benghazi! ... Oops! Nothing happened.
While at the very least, Hillary set up a private email server (and a not particularly secure one) against government protocol.
Re: (Score:2)
Just pretend that Hillary is a Republican and that Bernie Sanders & Elizabeth Warren have already been coronated president!
What, like, both of them? How did that happen? Was the constitution amended to allow for 2 presidents at the same time? Are you saying that one of them served a term, and then was replaced with the other? 2 terms? Were they biologically joined into one legal person that could serve as president? Was the country fractured into 2 countries and they were each elected as the president of one country? Was democracy suspended completely and a new oligarch came to power who decided that the country needed 2
Re:I'm going to make this easy for you! (Score:5, Insightful)
All that I know is that it has been reported that she had an e-mail server of her own. I could not tell you when it operated and I do not know what laws or regulations existed at what point during its operation.
At this point, so many contradictory, technically incorrect, and outright silly things have been said by talking heads about this that I'm simply inclined to not bother to judge based on it. This is like when the supposed expert from one of the news channels reported on the hacker 4chan and the images of celebrities he stole and put up on the Internet, it was so full of derp that there was no point in even bothering to pay attention other than as a drinking game of factual inaccuracies. This episode should be interpreted the same way when nontechnical people are doing the talking, be they Mrs. Clinton, or the congress critters, or the reporters.
Re:I'm going to make this easy for you! (Score:5, Insightful)
I have not seen any good reporting on the configuration of the mail server, on when it operated, or on the law during that period. I have heard that the law changed sometime after the mail server was used, and that people have been attempting to tie the operation of the mail server pre-law to the post-law rules.
I do not find for or against Mrs. Clinton for the mail server. If the timetable for a change in law meant that she was not breaking the law, then I would find in favor of her, rather than simply discarding this as something upon which to judge her.
And all of this is silly since conventional e-mail is an inherently insecure communications medium to begin with, regardless of the destination.
Stop trying to offend with style. Find some goddamn substance instead.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I do not have enough information to make a judgement.
Said almost no one on the Internet ever.
I hope you practice such equanimity in all your online interactions./p>
Re:I'm going to make this easy for you! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Translation: I am biased and choosing to stick my head in the sand on this issue.
Translation: I'm unable to cogently carry on a civil discussion or respond with valid points of my own, so I'm going to make myself feel clever and witty by reposting someone else's post again in an astounding act of me-tooism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm going to make this easy for you! (Score:5, Insightful)
"What difference does it make?" -- H. Clinton.
Honestly, who cares? It's a non issue.
The problem is that she put information that must be in the PUBLIC RECORDS (see FOIA) on a private server where she was the sole decider of what is or is not going to the public record. This screams all kinds of alarms for me. No, I cant say she withheld anything damning, illegal, embarrassing, incriminating or who knows what else. What I can say with certainty that all of her actions with regards to the server dont appear to be consistant with someone who isn't hiding something (wipe the HD -- emails trickling out after hearing "they've been turned over" already -- etc). And that fills me with doubt about her and her judgement.
How can we elect someone with this kind of doubt to become president? Only someone with some fake "situational" ethics can forgive this enough to pull the lever for her at the ballot box.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Why?"
Powell and Rice didn't use email much during their tenure as SoS. Rice didn't use personal email at all for State Department business. Powell used a secured laptop with a state department email for the bulk of state department business with minor (his claim) non-state-department issues from his personal account (like house keeping stuff).
Albright didn't use email at all, from my understanding.
That's "why".
That leaves Clinton the last one of the SoS's who could have used email (information age) -- a
Re:I'm going to make this easy for you! (Score:4, Informative)
"She's been investigated for years, and not one problem found"
There's been plenty of 'problems' found. Nothing that has yielded an indictment -- but enough that a reasonable person should keep her clear of public service.
"There are records of every "official" email to and from her in the State Department servers."
Clearly you've no idea what you are talking about.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us... [nbcnews.com]
Those emails werent ON the state department servers. Because she sent them from her PERSONAL account to the DoD. How many other emails have yet to surface because they aren't on the State Department's archive?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09... [nytimes.com]
You know... if I see enough tell tale clues that a rat has been in my kitchen (chewed hole in dog food, for example) I can decide that there *IS* a rat without actually SEEING it. There MIGHT be a logical explanation for the hole, but as far as Clinton goes, every excuse comes with a lot more tell tale clues. Example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
And then this:
http://www.npr.org/sections/al... [npr.org]
And it was wiped....
She could be spitting your your face and you'd be saying "it's raining!" Please, I'm not saying "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the legal sense that she did anything illegal. I'm saying that a reasonable person could only conclude that she hasn't been forth-coming and should not be trusted.
(please note all my citations are either liberal or left leaning sources).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why doesn't this apply to government officials (of any stripe)?