State Dept. IT Staff Told To Keep Quiet About Clinton's Server (computerworld.com) 371
dcblogs writes this report from Computerworld: Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's decision to use a private email server ran afoul of the government's IT security and record retention requirements, according to a report by the department's inspector general released today. This use of a private email server did not go unnoticed within the Department of State's IT department. Two IT staff members who raised concerns about Clinton's use of a private server were told not to speak of it. Clinton was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013 and during that period she used a private email server in her New York home. This report by the Department of State's Inspector General about Clinton's use of a private server makes clear that rules and regulations were not followed. It says that Clinton would not have received approval for this server had she sought it. According to the current CIO, the report said, "Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs." However, the report notes, according to these officials, The Bureau of Diplomatic Security and IRM (Bureau of Information Resource Management) "did not -- and would not -- approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM [Foreign Affairs Manual] and the security risks in doing so."
top security (Score:5, Funny)
Re:top security (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry, we've been assured that there's no evidence the server was hacked by the guy who said he hacked it.
The fact that we don't have any logs from the server to show that is, of course, completely immaterial.
After all, it's best practice to simply never log anything, so that there will never be any evidence that you were compromised.
Re:top security (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to say the way the news covers this seems a little odd. They phrase it as though this is a problem because I guess hackers could break into this and steal government secrets. It seems to me that the greater concern is that by hiding and then destroying government records it makes her that much more unaccountable to the people.
Re:top security (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to say the way the news covers this seems a little odd. They phrase it as though this is a problem because I guess hackers could break into this and steal government secrets. It seems to me that the greater concern is that by hiding and then destroying government records it makes her that much more unaccountable to the people.
^^^ A thousand times this. And I was a Hillary supporter until the private server news broke. I am astounded how everyone (even Bernie) discounted its importance. While I agree that there have been many attempts by the republicans to tarnish her image, this is not one of them. This is a major fuckup that should have immediately disqualified her from running.
New titles (Score:5, Insightful)
So instead of the barons, dukes and earls from Europe the US has Clintons, Bush and Kennedy's. I get it.
Re:top security (Score:5, Insightful)
Those IBM System/1 are far more reliable than any crap that can be purchased today. Plus I bet they are radiation hardened.
Re:top security (Score:5, Insightful)
and, those old ibm machines will never run ruby or php or visual basic.
you know, lets keep them around a bit longer, ok?
Hellz Yeah! (Score:3)
Someone else who values Fortran and PJL!
Re: (Score:2)
Also a lot harder to hack into than a modern system would be.
Re:top security (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
its the 'save as...' icon, you insensitive clod.
Re:top security (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, conservative "fucktards" worry about things more important. How is an obsolete non-networked computer a security hole? Even if an attacker managed to steal one of these floppies, how would he read it? When was the last time that you saw an 8" floppy drive?
Obsolete? Yes. Security hole? No.
You want Clinton in charge of our nuclear launch codes?
Re: top security (Score:4, Funny)
Oh don't worry, Hillary will just email them to a more responsible person.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh don't worry, Obama plans to keep them after he leaves office, problem solved [newyorker.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I did, seeing humor in the URL also is a give away.
Re:top security (Score:4, Insightful)
You want Trump in charge of our nuclear launch codes?
FTFY - Oh, hell no!
Re: (Score:3)
No. But I would trust Hillary even less than Trump. At least Trump appears not wanting to police the entire planet - read "to start wars that favor the defense industry that pays campaign money". If Hillary gets elected I'm sure she'll start a couple of pointless wars.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
At least Trump appears not wanting to police the entire planet - read "to start wars that favor the defense industry that pays campaign money".
Our allies would just declare war on the US because Trump is a threat to the world.
If Hillary gets elected I'm sure she'll start a couple of pointless wars.
You're confusing Hillary with George W.
Re: (Score:3)
No, Nixon was more Democrat than Obama is. That's how much things have changed.
Re: (Score:3)
Better her than Trump.
Better who? (Score:5, Informative)
Not only do we know Hillary has broken federal laws, Hillary has also started at least one war entirely on her own (Libya), and frankly in what should matter to at least Slashdot people is directly responsible for the death of an IT worker who just happened to be at the U.S. embassy in Libya when it was attacked. But I guess you don't care about him, do you? You just want Hillary to be elected, no matter the costs to the rest of us...
Meanwhile Trump has broken no federal laws, and has never started a war of any kind, and actually knows how to use things like Twitter. Do you want an imbecile technophobe who cannot even drive as president, or someone who actually knows what computers are and uses them?
Obviously if Sanders was running he would be the best choice but Queen Hillary is not going to let that happen, now is she? Her ability to block the will of the DNC primary voters is to you I am sure just another sign of how much she should be president, because female!
Re: (Score:2)
So what do you recommend they use? A Chromebook?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:top security (Score:4, Funny)
If Windows 10 gave massages, I'd be running it now.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for a true "Laugh Out Loud" moment.
Why do I get the feeling Microsoft operatives are right this moment seeking ways to physically access these antediluvian media...and considering "next steps"?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do I suspect we have a similar sense of humour?
Litmus test / Logic test (Score:5, Insightful)
If nothing on Hillary's server was classified it should be released without redaction for full review and inspection by any party. That has not happened, and it won't happen. FOI requests regarding information on her server are denied almost as soon as they are filed.
There is no "truth" left in Government. The only option they have is to silence critics. Oh, and more circuses.
Re:Litmus test / Logic test (Score:5, Informative)
If nothing on Hillary's server was classified it should be released without redaction for full review and inspection by any party. That has not happened, and it won't happen. FOI requests regarding information on her server are denied almost as soon as they are filed.
You aren't giving credit where credit is due. Judicial Watch [judicialwatch.org] has a lawsuit pursuing information along these lines, and is making progress. (They accept donations [judicialwatch.org] in their fight against corruption.)
In fact you can thank them for the progress being made:
Judicial Watch Statement on State Department OIG Report on Hillary Clinton’s Email Practices [judicialwatch.org]
It was Judicial Watch’s litigation that almost certainly forced the State Department to publicly disclose Hillary Clinton’s secret email account that is now the subject of a scathing Inspector General Report. A statement by the State Department in a February 2, 2015, status report in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit was the first notice to the public and the court that State had failed to thoroughly search all of Clinton’s email records: “[The State Department] has discovered that additional searches for documents potentially responsive to the FOIA must be conducted.” That statement was the first acknowledgement of Clinton’s secret email. And now, nearly a year and a half later, the State Department’s own Inspector General is confirming the gravity of Clinton’s end run around the law. Judicial Watch already uncovered much of the information cited in this report. But the OIG report will be helpful in upcoming questioning of witnesses about the Clinton email matter.
Judicial Watch Begins Discovery in Hillary Clinton Email Matter [breitbart.com]
More on the Clinton email scandal at Judicial Watch. [judicialwatch.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If nothing on Hillary's server was classified it should be released without redaction for full review and inspection by any party. That has not happened, and it won't happen. FOI requests regarding information on her server are denied almost as soon as they are filed.
You aren't giving credit where credit is due. Judicial Watch [judicialwatch.org] has a lawsuit pursuing information along these lines, and is making progress.
Is Judicial Watch going to use those funds to prevent more imaginary terrorist attacks [rightwingwatch.org]?
Re:Litmus test / Logic test (Score:4, Informative)
The government routinely reverse classifies anything, particularly anything that will embarass anyone in a prominent government position or in an elected office. This is SOP.
Re: Litmus test / Logic test (Score:2)
Re:Litmus test / Logic test (Score:5, Informative)
She was, once. [dailycaller.com]
Somehow she went without retraining/reminding for the final 3 years of her tenure.
Re:Litmus test / Logic test (Score:4, Informative)
Well, the real question IMHO is "maybe oral briefing isn't really briefing", you know?
Silly Rabbit.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Or the Clinton Global Initiative. You know, the initiative to provide the Clinton family with hundreds of millions ...
Re:Silly Rabbit.... (Score:5, Informative)
And yet despite the release of all of Palin's emails, I don't recall a single one being redacted for containing classified information which had been unlawfully stored in an unapproved location.
Nice try at deflection, best try to find a more relevant example to try to excuse bad behavior with.
HRC's judgement sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:HRC's judgement sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
In the midst of all the back-and-forth on the particular brou-ha-ha, this is the thing that's been deciding for me. By her own admission, she prioritized her own convenience over the law and the security of the nation. That's not the kind of person I want in control of the 'football'.
Re: (Score:3)
Name one politician that DOESN'T think that the law is for other people. I've not done the research, but I'm willing to bet real money that there's no such thing anywhere in the US Federal government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's true because the laws are convoluted and vague. That gives an advantage to those who can afford the best lawyers: if you have a crappy lawyer, the interpretation can more easily be tilted against you.
OJ could afford layers who were masters of F.U.D., you and I couldn't, and that's why he wasn't convicted of a pretty obvious crime.
At least be glad you are (probably) middle class, because the poor have this problem even more so.
That's life in plutocracy, and our
Not exactly with OJ (Score:3)
Part of it was wealth, but a bigger part was fame. A problem most people have in court is that the first interaction any of the jury has with you is seeing you sit at the defendant's table and people tend to have a bias that if you are there, you did something to deserve being there (which to be fair is an accurate bias, just not one they should have ideally). So you already have one strike against you starting out. Famous people don't have that. The jury knows them from another context and so views them mo
She wasn't the only one (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not Hillary fan, but:
Didn't our last President use private email services, even though he was required to only use government services for official email?
How come so many people criticizing HRC aren't also mad at GWB for his using non-government servers?
After all, he deleted official Presidential emails on government servers despite the law to retain them...and he supposedly had the backups deleted too.
Why aren't these same people criticizing him? Or is that too long ago, or was he the wrong party to c
Re: (Score:2)
hey, conservative: you really want to throw rocks around glass houses?
are you SURE you want to be holier-than-thou?
We aren't talking about "thou," we're talking about Hillary Clinton.
Do you seriously contend that nobody in public office rises about the corruption and malfeasance of the Clintons?
Who else would be so brazen to post a public money bucket (The Clinton Foundation) for "donations" by people who just "coincidentally" had business coming before the State Department?
This article has more highlights from the report (Score:5, Informative)
The 9 biggest revelations in the State IG report on Clinton's emails [politico.com]
And more analysis of this report and its impact (Score:4, Informative)
Why Clintonâ(TM)s email problems are here to stay [politico.com]
Sorry for the repeated politico.com links. No affiliation, but I've reading my political news there lately. If you want to preserve your sanity, don't read the comments at that site.
Re: (Score:2)
They also seem to usually be pro-Clinton and anti-Sanders, but that may just be my biased view.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like incompetent IT staff were hired.
OMG we're being hacked by all these scans! Better shut the server down! Just goes to show how many incompetent IT people are out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Pro-Hillary PAC Spending $1 Million to Hire Online Trolls
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/... [breitbart.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Pro-Hillary PAC Spending $1 Million to Hire Online Trolls
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/... [breitbart.com]
Moron with a 7 digit UUID thinks a user with a mid-6 digit UUID is somehow a hired troll.
You seriously think I'm taking the /. account I started in the mid-90s and hiring myself out as a shill?
Ignorance (of law) is no excuse (Score:2)
It doesn't matter how senile Hillary has gotten, if she broke the law she broke the law and needs to at least go to trial. They can factor in her technical inability in sentencing.
But we all know that will not happen, making a mockery of the entire notion of Secret/Top Secret.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter how senile Hillary has gotten, if she broke the law she broke the law and needs to at least go to trial. They can factor in her technical inability in sentencing.
But we all know that will not happen, making a mockery of the entire notion of Secret/Top Secret.
It's called prosecutorial discretion. If every act that broke a law was fully pursued then almost everyone here would have seen the inside of a court room. Laws are written with some generality so that prosecutors aren't forced to file when the law is violated but they don't think the act deserves punishment.
This behaviour was going on for 4 years in plain sight and no one caught on that it was an issue.
If it takes that long for people to go "oh wait! that's a crime!" then I don't think it's an act that des
Re: (Score:2)
That's why embezzlers are never punished, because it takes years for anyone to notice anything is wrong, or they pay off the right people.
Note I also said in plain sight, embezzlers aren't acting in plain site they're trying to hide what they do because they know its illegal.
There's no indication that Clinton tried to hide the email address she was using from anyone.
Absolutely Clinton should go free despite breaking some of the clearest laws that exist.
Don't forcefully touch people without their consent, that's assault.
Of course to suggest Justin Trudeau should be charged with assault for his elbow [www.cbc.ca] is absurd.
The laws said she was supposed to keep records of her official communications, she did. She broke agency rules with her ow
Laws are only for the little people silly! (Score:5, Insightful)
The depressing part of all of this is that it is obvious she is guilty, but it really doesn't matter. The politically powerful, whether the Goldman Sachs or the Clintons, will always be able to get away with whatever they want. Meanwhile our prison population is overflowing with "little people" who lack the political connections necessary to be free of the ire of the Federal government. Host an illegal mail server that is easily hacked. No big deal. Actually blow the whistle on Federal crimes and corruption. To prison with you!
Re:Laws are only for the little people silly! (Score:4, Insightful)
It disturbs me that the United States has for-profit prisons, and impose harsh penalties on crimes that would (in many other countreis) be considered quite minor. And from what I understand, other countries are trying to emulate this model?
Prisons in the US seem to turn idiot kids into hardened criminals. The Scandinavian model of rehabilitation over punishment seems a far better solution.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Guilty of what?
People keep saying that but I've not heard a single person quote a law she appears to be guilty of other than being a bitch. (which isn't against the law). It was stupid, it violated department policy and in my opinion nothing bad came of it, she was technically in charge of state and could set whatever policy she wanted. It would be like accusing the president of releasing classified information when he can at his will classify/unclassify anything he wants and the very act of releasing the i
Re:Laws are only for the little people silly! (Score:5, Informative)
She violated several statues concerning the handling of classified email as well as the various document retention statues which apply specifically to any work product for high level government officials. Neither of those sets of laws are department specific and apply to all federal agencies.
The laws and statues concerning handling of classified materials are especially damning because they don't even require intent to be found guilty. Merely having classified material outside of secured authorized channels is enough to be in violation. The mere existence of her server as well as the thumb drive she gave her lawyer were immediate proof of a violation as soon as the first classified piece of email was found.
Re:Laws are only for the little people silly! (Score:5, Informative)
How much does being an online pro-Clinton shill pay? Or is your ignorance actually real?
Clearly you aren't paying attention, applicable laws have been cited by many, allow me to educate you. To start, look up 18 U.S. Code 793 [cornell.edu]
Given the emails she turned over contained satellite images which should have been labeled as "TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN", it's pretty clear that would be covered by the above section (as just one example).
You'll note in the statute above, there is no intent required, only gross negligence, which is a pretty easy bar to meet given her knowingly setting up a server that as SoS would receive classified information from time to time.
And this aside from the fact the IG says that she didn't turn over all of the emails she was supposed to, not only can she be hit under 793 for the emails being removed from their "proper place of custody", but also for the destruction of them as well, but also for destruction of the emails under FOIA laws.
No, she can't. She could declassify anything originating from State, but anything coming from another agency she has no authority over.
Re: (Score:2)
People keep saying that but I've not heard a single person quote a law she appears to be guilty of other than being a bitch.
I can help you with that. U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code makes it unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email.
Re: (Score:2)
Guilty of what?
People keep saying that but I've not heard a single person quote a law she appears to be guilty of other than being a bitch. (which isn't against the law). It was stupid, it violated department policy and in my opinion nothing bad came of it, she was technically in charge of state and could set whatever policy she wanted. It would be like accusing the president of releasing classified information when he can at his will classify/unclassify anything he wants and the very act of releasing the information would be official declassification. Sometimes the boss does stupid stuff, but that's one of the advantages of being the boss.
Guilty of being in politics a long time.
See if you spend a long time in politics you're no longer cool, particularly if you've been prominent at the national stage for a long time then you obviously haven't fixed everything and are part of the problem.
Worse if people start making up bad things about you... true they're made up, but so many bad things made up surely a few of them must be partly true?
Doubly so if you're a woman, not that most of your critics care, but it bothers a few and they complain a lot,
All animals (Score:2)
All Americans are equal but Americans in authority are more equal.
The logical conclusion (Score:2)
Looking fo new IT jobs if Hill wins (Score:2, Insightful)
They's gonna be a buncha nervous IT guys in the gov if the Hillary wins. Paraphrasing Tony Soprano, revenge is like serving cold cuts.
How could they not know? (Score:2)
According to the current CIO, the report said, "Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs."
So, if they had known about it, they would have taken responsibility for securing it. I wonder if anybody ever looked at her email address? Obviously, coming from her own personal server, it wasn't on one of their State Department domains. So, either they did know and did nothing or they really are as inept as we all thought. Of course, option 3 is both are true.
Preservation rule question (Score:2)
The policies state that the person is to leave copies of all work-related emails at the time they leave duty if using a personal/outside email system. Hillary's spokesman has maintained that if regular forwarding or CC'ing is done, then the State Department will have a copy. The "rule" didn't state the format of the copies, only that it had to be done. It seems that technically, the CC/forwarding process would comply.
Because the internal email system hiccuped, they allegedly couldn't verify if this was act
Re:Preservation rule question (Score:4, Informative)
Here's the National Archives transfer requirements [archives.gov], from 2002, for e-mail messages with attachments:
The practical issue is that an individual's emails must be archived in such a way that they can be organized and searched as a "body of records."
The example given for labeling a body of records is, "the e-mail records of the Deputy Secretary from the past fiscal year."
If someone want's to know what the Secretary of State said about a certain subject then they need to search the emails the secretary sent. The way Secretary Clinton performed cc/forwarding of emails then all emails of anyone to whom she sent an email would have to be searched.
It is the responsibility of the head of each Federal agency to make and preserve records including, "effective controls over the creation and over the maintenance and use of records in the conduct of current business." It's hard to see how failing to keep as a record the emails one sent and relying on the addressees to retain those records meets the standard the National Archives has set.
Secretary Clinton said she didn't want anyone to be able to search or examine her personal emails. The system she deployed made it so no one could search her official emails either.
Re: (Score:3)
The regulations under the Federal Records act allow 3 methods for storing email as a record. The State Department doesn't meet the requirements for one of them and the Office of the Secretary chose not to implement another one. That leaves a single, legal method for the Office of the Secretary of the Department of State: printing.
Regardless of the intermediate form, even if the Secretary's office met the requirements in order to use electronic storage of the emails, the method you describe in simply cc'ing
Re:And they knew it was hacked since at least 2011 (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
Specifically: "In recent media interviews, Lazar claimed he had easily hacked into Clinton’s controversial private email server. But the Justice Department statement did not confirm this claim, and a law enforcement official said investigators did not find evidence to support the claim."
They're trying to pass this off as nothing bad happened, so it's no big deal. Except she wiped the server before turning it over - OF COURSE they aren't going to find evidence of hacking now, after the evidence has been destroyed.
Re:And they knew it was hacked since at least 2011 (Score:4, Informative)
It has been reported that the FBI was able to recover the deleted emails [nbcnews.com]... and presumably they recovered more than just the giant binary file which contained the email store, so a more in-depth look at if the server had ever been compromised is probably possible, but we aren't going to know for sure until the FBI talks a bit more publicly.
Re: And they knew it was hacked since at least 201 (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, though he was at least smart enough to ask for and get immunity from the FBI & DoJ to cooperate with their investigation [cnn.com].
It's actually quite difficult counting the number of bad omens for her we've seen.
Re: (Score:3)
So you're saying he'll end up committing suicide with 3 shots to the back of the head and rolled up in a carpet?
Re: (Score:3)
Just maybe that's because she only deleted personal stuff - or stuff she honestly didn't think was important. So she didn't see the need to delete it in a way that prevented recovery. That doesn't excuse using the server. It just maybe suggests that she didn't use it to intentionally compromise the security of the US - or pass US secrets to our enemies - as some Clinton haters are all too eager to assume.
The simplest explanation also makes the most sense - and all you logic hounds would agree if you were
Re:And they knew it was hacked since at least 2011 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
One of the many things that points to how "Rules-for-thee, Not-for-me" this still is:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
Specifically: "In recent media interviews, Lazar claimed he had easily hacked into Clinton’s controversial private email server. But the Justice Department statement did not confirm this claim, and a law enforcement official said investigators did not find evidence to support the claim."
They're trying to pass this off as nothing bad happened, so it's no big deal. Except she wiped the server before turning it over - OF COURSE they aren't going to find evidence of hacking now, after the evidence has been destroyed.
So you think the guy who got famous by bragging about the "hacks" he did (really just logging into email by guessing the answers to security questions) was able to hack into Clinton's server. A completely different skillset.
And then after hacking into this server he found the email of Hillary Clinton, the acting US Secretary of State, by far the biggest target he'd ever hacked, and having found his biggest scoop yet.... he didn't bother to tell anyone because he thought it wasn't interesting.
OF COURSE he di
Re: And they knew it was hacked since at least 201 (Score:2)
Why, was Hillary's email password so super-duper complex he couldn't have guessed it? What, you think Hillary 'wipe - you mean like with a towel' Clinton, the woman Aides described as 'easily confused' came up with a password that included both upper and lower case letters, one or mor
Re: And they knew it was hacked since at least 201 (Score:4, Informative)
you think Hillary 'wipe - you mean like with a towel' Clinton
Is this supposed to be some kind of Trump-inspired misogynist insult?
What? He's QUOTING HER. A reporter asked her if she wiped the server before allowing the FBI to see it. And she said, "What, like with a towel?"
I know, you already know that, and you're hoping that other people don't so you can pretend otherwise. Just another Shillary, trying to distract from her own words.
Re: (Score:2)
Very likely... assuming the FBI & DoJ pass on charging her, which based on available information would be trivial.
*fingers crossed*
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But everyone else was doing it? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a total lefty, but Kerry, Albright, Rice, and Powell weren't running their own insecure servers which were hacked at least once that we know of. And none of those Secretaries of State claimed that they had done everything right in setting up such a server, and that it had been approved by the department, which the department subsequently denied.
Hillary Clinton either lied about this, or she was lied to by her staff. That the government has granted immunity to the staffer who set up the mail server leads me to believe that they've got her cold if she tries to claim she had no idea. I've been in IT for 25 years, and I've always protected myself by making my recommendations or warnings in writing to prevent just this sort of shifting of blame.
The Salon article today suggested that she just didn't follow State Department procedure, without ever mentioning that the department never sanctioned her server, or that her server had been hacked as a result of poor security. The article implies that other Secretaries did it too, so that makes it acceptable. Just absurd.
Re:But everyone else was doing it? (Score:5, Insightful)
You were reading Salon... that's your first mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
The claim that the server was hacked has never been validated, nor has any evidence ever been provided. The claim stands as no more significant than the claim that the guy in Australia created Bitcoin. In other words without evidence it's not at all believable. The people that have made these claims are not exactly trustworthy sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody involved is trustworthy. But only one it running for president.
I for one hope Lanzo has the complete archive.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, lets prosecute people for crimes they didn't commit.
BTW, the FBI would like to have a chat with you, Mr Coward is it? Something about the Lindberg Baby and JFK assassinations?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm a total lefty, but Kerry, Albright, Rice, and Powell weren't running their own insecure servers which were hacked at least once that we know of.
We know she was hacked? That's surprising because I've been paying attention and I don't know she was hacked.
Then you are a self-deluded shill trying to appear balanced, but you are really, really, really bad at it. Your further statements prove you have absolutely no understanding, whatsoever, how real things work in the real world. You hear what you want to hear in your basement. Good luck with that.
Re: US CIO "everyone is doing it" (Score:5, Insightful)
"Everyone" was not using their political office to use the subterfuge of giving speeches to foreign government and multi-nationals to enrich themselves personally in their non-profit foundation.
Most of the press and public are not seeing the huge Clinton Corruption Campaign they conducted using Hillary's private email server. But the DOJ and others are now going through those emails with a fine toothed comb.
Hillary may not get jail for a personal server, but she may get jail time for selling out the US with "special favors" in her decisions for foreign entitities from which she received "donations" in the form of both speech fees and contributions to the Clinton foundation.
It is truly mind boggling that she & Bill thought they could get away with this.
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary is counting on the public to get corruption fatigue by using redirection and the "everyone is doing it" defense.
Her strategies have gotten them through all their other scandals.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Even for people who can't stand Trump, he would be an excellent choice for president over Hillary Clinton.
If Trump were elected, the creep of Executive Privilege which has become a real problem in the balance of powers would immediately have it's wings clipped. There aren't gonna be a lot of arbitrary executive orders tolerated from a Trump Administration.
I don't think Trump would be elected for a second term. I don't even think he would want to be re-elected. He could be the 21th century version of Jame
Re:Ugh.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I think a Trump administration might cause the left to re-think the whole "Every issue great and small should be decided in Washington DC" thing, and seriously support genuine Federalism.
For possible positives of a Trump administration... that's about all I can think of.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ugh.. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing inherently "left" or "right" about fascism, especially not within the US today, where both sides are firmly committed to it's ideals (the control of both industry and government by the same select group)
More to the point, Hitler isn't regarded as a monster because he was fascist. He's regarded as a monster because he was a democratically elected leader who built a power base on racism and twisted nationalism, and then used that power to commit some of the worst atrocities ever seen in the "civilized" world against his chosen scapegoats.
THOSE are the parallels I fear with Trump - his understated demonization of Muslims, Mexicans, Chinese, etc. as scapegoats, and the open bigotry and violence he's already inspiring just by running for office.
Re:Ugh.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Respectfully, Fascism is a *collectivist* ideology. It has far more in common with communism, socialism, and progressivism than it does with a fundamentally individualist ideology like true "classical" liberalism.
I always suggest that people who try to deny this watch Triumph of the Will. It helps explain how the Nazis *saw themselves*. They were absolutely a progressive, collectivist ideology.
Re:Ugh.. (Score:4)
No, no, no. You make a propaganda movie to influence how others see you. The Triumph of the Will is how the Nazis wanted German to see them, and indeed the word "socialist" was quite popular at that time in history, which is why they hijacked it in "National Socialist".
Of course, what they did had nothing of the "socialist" part. They were heavily funded by the wealthy industrialist class (Krupp is a name among a hundred others), they were against abortion and for high child-bearing rates, were fond of guns and trained children with toy guns from an early age, stressed competition and survival of the strongest, had good relations with high clergy, including the Vatican, to the point that they helped hiding many Nazi war criminals after WW2.
Then of course there is the issue of "scientific" racism and the idea of master race, persecuting political enemies (guess what, almost all in the left side of politics), invasion of the Soviet Union, persecution of Jews (an age-old right-wing conspiracy theory used to provide the masses with an easy scapegoat).
I get what you are doing, trying to pull off the Goebbelsian Big Lie by associating the Nazis to your political opponents, no matter how historically groundless and ridiculous the association is. Maybe you believe it yourself. I would suggest you read more about the Nazis, you might end up liking them a lot.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you have to choose between SJW's and Nazis,
The scary part is that the Nazis really believed that they *were* social justice warriors.
Re:That confirms there is no case against Hillary (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously, how much does being a Clinton shill pay? I'm looking for a side gig.
Intent is not required, only gross negligence.
Damages are not required, simply allowing the classified info to end up in an unapproved place is.
Ever stop to read & consider just one of the relevant? [cornell.edu]
Re:That confirms there is no case against Hillary (Score:5, Insightful)
God I love left wing projection, it must be nice being able to blame all of your problems on the other side without a moment of self reflection or awareness.
A lie requires me to know that what I am saying is false... care to support that claim?
No? You lament a lack of facts from me (despite me highlighting just one law she can be convicted under)... but offer nothing yourself... this is my shocked face: :|
If you bothered to pay attention to the available facts and use your brain (I'm sure you have one, it's just atrophied a bit from lack of use), allow me to educate you:
1) True or false: Hillary is known to have had at least one spy satellite photo on her server which should have been labeled "TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN", a image which did not originate with the State Department so the original classification would apply.
2) True or false: Hillary's private email server was authorized by the State Department or another federal agency to store classified information.
3) True or false: Hillary is known to have been briefed on her requirements to properly handle classified information and signed a document confirming her acceptance of policies, including criminal penalties for violations.
Answer Key:
1) True: http://www.thedailybeast.com/a... [thedailybeast.com]
2) False: https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
3) True: http://freebeacon.com/politics... [freebeacon.com]
Given the law I cited above doesn't require 'malice' or 'intent', but simply 'gross negligence', it's not at all a stretch to suggest that Hillary was negligent with the setting up of her server that any reasonable person would expect would see classified information traverse it... and given the fact the server was not a 'proper place of custody'... per instance of classified information on her server, she could be looking at a penalty of "Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
How much does being a Hillary shill pay? I'm looking for a side job, and unlike you morons, I actually have a grasp of facts.