ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2016 elections , Clinton controversies , hillary clinton , James Comey , presidential candidates

Reply
Old 18th June 2016, 09:52 AM   #361
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I've read very little of this thread, and I haven't followed the email issue very closely, but if I may, I would like to ask a question related to Hillary and her emails.

I listen to right wing talk radio, and they always present her server as if it were some computer in someone's house. Sean Hannity seems to always say it was "in a bathroom". I heard another talk about it as "in a friend's basement".

They are constantly talking about how insecure it was.

I don't believe it.

Whatever else one might say about the Clintons, I believe they are smart, at least in the intellectual sense. I think they understand that there are some systems that are more secure than others. I think the whole purpose of using an email system that was not in the government network directly was to keep things secret. She wanted to keep some things secret from from Russia, but she wanted to keep as much as possible secret from a far more dangerous and powerful enemy, the Republicans in Congress. Oh, and the press.

I will take bets that that server was locked down as tight as a drum, and encrypted about a billion different ways. I'll bet that the company she hired to set it up was not some "mom and pop" shop, as Hannity has said, but a consulting firm that specializes in secure communication. And if that's not true, I will be dreadfully disappointed, because I think Hillary is smart enough and rich enough to do that.

ETA: And if this is off topic for this thread, I apologize. Feel free to split it or delete it as you see fit. I didn't think it was quite worthy of a new thread, and this seemed like a good place to ask.
Way back when this thread started there was a lot of speculation about why Clinton would do all this. I agree with you. I think she wanted to keep a lot of stuff out of GOP hands (e.g., email to Obama, "Syria crossed the red line, why aren't we bombing them???).

You would think she would have a Fort Knox-esque server, but then you would also think when she deleted something it would stay deleted, and we know the FBI has recovered deleted emails, so who knows how secure all this was. Maybe her IT guy was an incompetent sycophant.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2016, 10:18 AM   #362
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,679
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
You would think she would have a Fort Knox-esque server, but then you would also think when she deleted something it would stay deleted, and we know the FBI has recovered deleted emails, so who knows how secure all this was. Maybe her IT guy was an incompetent sycophant.
Or, she, or her consultants, knew that "deleting" didn't really mean deleting, and therefore was not destroying, which meant that there was no way it was a crime. All she did by "deleting" was make it a little bit harder to reach, and maybe everyone involved knew it.

The above is highly speculative, really just tossing out a hypothetical, but I just have a hard time believing that this woman, who really has been the target of a vast right wing conspiracy for twenty years before she set up that server, would do something that would be so easily defeated, and would not consult some fairly good lawyers before doing it.

I'm guessing that she was pretty sure she had the legal bases and security issues covered pretty well. Of course, I could be wrong. Arrogance leads people to do stupid things. She may have cut some corners on either security or law believing that somehow, those things didn't really apply to her. It wouldn't be the first time a politician has fallen into that trap.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2016, 10:24 AM   #363
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,883
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I've read very little of this thread, and I haven't followed the email issue very closely, but if I may, I would like to ask a question related to Hillary and her emails.

I listen to right wing talk radio, and they always present her server as if it were some computer in someone's house. Sean Hannity seems to always say it was "in a bathroom". I heard another talk about it as "in a friend's basement".

They are constantly talking about how insecure it was.

I don't believe it.
Believe it. We're on Part III of this discussion already, and we've addressed issues related to the sophistication and security of her server in depth. There is no evidence that it had anything better than average security and lots of evidence that it had worse. The server was in fact physically located in the basement of her house in Chappaqua, NY for her entire tenure as Secretary of State (and before). In 2013, it was relocated to a data center in New Jersey, and then was sent on to a very small IT firm called Platte River Networks in Colorado. Platte River had hardware dedicated to Hillary's email that was physically located in a room which had previously been a bathroom (before Platte River moved in). Once the server was moved to Platte River, Platte River (unbeknownst to Hillary and her team) engaged a company called Datto to do periodic backups of the server and store the data in their cloud. When the server was sent to Platte River, Hillary's team asked that the storage options be set to permanently erase any deleted emails older than 30 days. However, because of the Datto backups, not all of those deleted emails were permanently erased from existence.

Quote:
Whatever else one might say about the Clintons, I believe they are smart, at least in the intellectual sense.
Yes they are. But even brilliant people can be extremely ignorant of certain areas and can make some really dumb mistakes.

Quote:
I think they understand that there are some systems that are more secure than others. I think the whole purpose of using an email system that was not in the government network directly was to keep things secret. She wanted to keep some things secret from from Russia, but she wanted to keep as much as possible secret from a far more dangerous and powerful enemy, the Republicans in Congress. Oh, and the press.
She certainly didn't manage her own email server to keep things secret from Russia. Do you honestly think that crossed her mind as a motive at all? I don't.

Quote:
I will take bets that that server was locked down as tight as a drum, and encrypted about a billion different ways.
You would lose.

Quote:
I'll bet that the company she hired to set it up was not some "mom and pop" shop, as Hannity has said, but a consulting firm that specializes in secure communication.
You would lose.

Quote:
And if that's not true, I will be dreadfully disappointed, because I think Hillary is smart enough and rich enough to do that.
Well, prepare to be dreadfully disappointed. I'm a little surprised that you know so little at this point, given that you seem pretty intelligent and pretty well informed otherwise. I guess that explains why she's on the verge of being anointed the Democratic nominee.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2016, 10:44 AM   #364
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Or, she, or her consultants, knew that "deleting" didn't really mean deleting, and therefore was not destroying, which meant that there was no way it was a crime. All she did by "deleting" was make it a little bit harder to reach, and maybe everyone involved knew it.

The above is highly speculative, really just tossing out a hypothetical, but I just have a hard time believing that this woman, who really has been the target of a vast right wing conspiracy for twenty years before she set up that server, would do something that would be so easily defeated, and would not consult some fairly good lawyers before doing it.

I'm guessing that she was pretty sure she had the legal bases and security issues covered pretty well. Of course, I could be wrong. Arrogance leads people to do stupid things. She may have cut some corners on either security or law believing that somehow, those things didn't really apply to her. It wouldn't be the first time a politician has fallen into that trap.
I agree. She's not stupid. Neither was Nixon, Scooter Libby, Oliver North, etc. These people just made bad calls and the law caught up with them. Maybe it's the same thing here.

Clinton's changing story about sending/receiving classified emails and her out-and-out lies that what she did was allowed (and confirmed) by the State Department, suggests she was taken by surprise by it all, so one has to wonder just how much thought she gave to the ramifications of all this.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2016, 10:49 AM   #365
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post

You would lose.



You would lose.
Evidence please. I'm not referring to the diarrhea of the mouth kind, No mind reading, just the evidence.

Thanks and surprise me, for once.
__________________
For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2016, 10:55 AM   #366
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,115
Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
Evidence please. I'm not referring to the diarrhea of the mouth kind, No mind reading, just the evidence.

Thanks and surprise me, for once.
Huh, David missed the extensive discussion of Platte River and Datto.

Perhaps he had that on ignore too

__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2016, 11:22 AM   #367
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,410
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
...
Yes they are. But even brilliant people can be extremely ignorant of certain areas and can make some really dumb mistakes.
...
When brilliant people are also rich and powerful, they become accustomed to telling people to "take care of" things, and those peoples' livelihoods and professional identities hinge on "taking care of" stuff. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Hillary told some minion to make sure her emails stayed "private" -- meaning out of reach of Congress, FOIA requests, archives, etc. -- and the minion came back and said "We're gonna put it in your basement. Nothing more private than that, eh, Mrs. C?" I suspect that nobody thought twice about classified material, national security implications, laws and regulations, etc., until questions were raised after she left office. That doesn't justify what she did, but helps explain it.

Last edited by Bob001; 18th June 2016 at 11:25 AM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2016, 11:34 AM   #368
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,679
I looked up Platte River Networks.

They are not a "mom and pop" shop. I don't know what they were like in 2013.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2016, 11:37 AM   #369
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,679
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I suspect that nobody thought twice about classified material, national security implications, laws and regulations, etc., until questions were raised after she left office. That doesn't justify what she did, but helps explain it.
I suspect that everyone thought about those things. That doesn't necessarily mean they got it right, but I think it was really high on the list of priorities.

That doesn't mean that was her motivation for doing it. Her motivation was to keep things away from Congress and the press. However, I am certain that she was also keenly aware about all of those things as she ordered the server to be set up.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2016, 11:49 AM   #370
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,410
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I suspect that everyone thought about those things. That doesn't necessarily mean they got it right, but I think it was really high on the list of priorities.

That doesn't mean that was her motivation for doing it. Her motivation was to keep things away from Congress and the press. However, I am certain that she was also keenly aware about all of those things as she ordered the server to be set up.
Why? There's no evidence that she was or is particularly technologically adept ("Wipe it? You mean with a cloth?"), and 2008 is practically an eon ago in the tech world. One State official said he offered to install a secure computer in her office, and she didn't want it because she didn't know how to use it. I suspect if she told somebody "keep it private," in her mind that would have included all ramifications of the word.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2016, 01:00 PM   #371
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,883
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I looked up Platte River Networks.

They are not a "mom and pop" shop. I don't know what they were like in 2013.
It had 30 employees and $4.7 million in revenue in 2013. Relative to the importance of their client, they can reasonably be called "mom and pop." If Hillary had done things the right way, her email would be handled by the IT people in the State Department, a single section of which (the Office of Chief Technology Office) has 143 employees.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2016, 05:40 PM   #372
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,381
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
It had 30 employees and $4.7 million in revenue in 2013. Relative to the importance of their client, they can reasonably be called "mom and pop." If Hillary had done things the right way, her email would be handled by the IT people in the State Department, a single section of which (the Office of Chief Technology Office) has 143 employees.
This is indisputably correct. How and why State - and the entire Executive Branch allowed this is the crux of where this investigation should have been going, all along. Just as "what actually happened" should have been the thurst of the Benghazi investigations. Somehow they both got turned into partisan crusades, though.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele
"Chicken **** Poster!"
Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2016, 06:48 PM   #373
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,679
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
It had 30 employees and $4.7 million in revenue in 2013. Relative to the importance of their client, they can reasonably be called "mom and pop." If Hillary had done things the right way, her email would be handled by the IT people in the State Department, a single section of which (the Office of Chief Technology Office) has 143 employees.
So, they had a total of 30 employees, each of which was responsible for generating an average of 150,000 dollars in revenue.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2016, 01:06 AM   #374
Mister Earl
Illuminator
 
Mister Earl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,502
I realize I haven't been in this discussion for ages and ages, but I'm just gonna chime in quick and say that, based on the events of the past year or so, have changed my mind regarding Hillary Clinton. I feel her use of a private email server, while not explicitly illegal at the time, was more than likely an effort to avoid a "paper trail", possibly to foil FOIA requests and the like. I find myself increasingly suspicious regarding her activities, her two foundations, and specifically the possibility of foundation donations tied directly to actions taken by the state department.

Don't/can't have time to discuss much, so I'm just saying how I feel, rather than making a specific claim; I do not have the time now to dig up lots of references.
Mister Earl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2016, 05:22 AM   #375
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,883
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
So, they had a total of 30 employees, each of which was responsible for generating an average of 150,000 dollars in revenue.
That is not how businesses work. Of the 30 employees, probably 5-10 were devoted to mundane aspects of any company like reception, accounting, marketing, and human resources. They're not responsible for revenue generation at all. Probably another 10-15 were IT people of some variety, including lower level people who handled customer support. They're also not revenue generators. The rest (10+) probably were the salespeople and managers responsible for drumming up and maintaining business with clients.

A tech company with that level of staffing really needs to generate a lot more than $4.7 million in sales to be viable. The managers clearly expected business to grow rapidly. And perhaps it was a promising company, and it was on its way to becoming successful and stable. But it wasn't there yet. A company in that stage of growth is risky to do business with for several reasons.

First and foremost of course is that its probability of going under in a short period of time is very high. The loss of one big client could do it. Or the loss of one or two key employees to a competitor. Second, a company which is growing aggressively is bound to cut corners in areas not visible to its clients. Security is one of those areas. There are so many ways a company like that could fail, it is almost irrational to expend major resources to defend against a low probability hit to its reputation. A large established company has far more to lose from a loss or breach of customer data, so it can be expected to expend far more resources to prevent one. Third, a small company that is growing rapidly just doesn't have the time, resources, or inclination to vet new employees carefully. If somebody demonstrates high technical competence, they're worth having, and any risk that he might have malicious intent is ignored. Larger established companies are more concerned about that kind of thing, and may even have safeguards in place to monitor new employees more closely.

The bottom line is that Clinton's choice of email server host was not commensurate with her status, nor with the financial resources at her disposal (i.e. getting the lowest price shouldn't have been an issue). There are only two reasons I can think of for her choice: (1) she was just giving business to a political connection, or somebody recommended by a political connection; or (2) she wanted a small firm which she knew would do whatever she wanted it to do without creating a paper trail (since a larger, more established firm might also be more bureaucratic when it came to responding to unusual requests).
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2016, 08:58 AM   #376
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,679
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
That is not how businesses work.
That's how mine works.

Of course, I was careful to say "average", because, as you noted, some are just low level support staff. They generate no revenue by themselves. They provide infrastructure for the rainmakers.

So do all the math, and you realize that this is a company with a small number of employees hauling in a pretty penny in revenue, and yes 4.7 million dollars is plenty of revenue to be viable in a service oriented business with 30 employees. Their only costs are facilities, hardware, software licensing, marketing, and salaries. The first three don't take up much of that 4.7 million. Advertising and other marketing could be pretty expensive, so that could take out a chunk, but there would still be a good piece left over after all that, and paying the receptionists and entry levels. Some of the people working for them were making a pretty good living. In order for those 30 employees to generate that much revenue, they either have to be providing low cost services to a lot of customers, or higher cost services to a smaller number of customers.

It looks to me like Platte River Networks was the latter. They weren't "mom and pop".

ETA: And your assessment of why she chose that company may have been correct, but that's a separate issue. What interested me was the right wing talk show hosts' insistence that she had some shabby little outfit with some server stuck in a bathroom. I didn't believe it then, and now that I know a bit more about things, I still don't believe it.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 19th June 2016 at 09:02 AM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2016, 02:49 PM   #377
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,410
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
....
It looks to me like Platte River Networks was the latter. They weren't "mom and pop".
...
I haven't been following this closely. But Platte River was hired in June 2013. Who actually installed and maintained Hillary's server from 2008-12, the period when she was SecState and would have had the most demanding security needs and faced the most intense hacking threats?
http://www.denverpost.com/2015/08/19...ver-in-denver/
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2016, 03:13 PM   #378
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,679
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I haven't been following this closely. But Platte River was hired in June 2013. Who actually installed and maintained Hillary's server from 2008-12, the period when she was SecState and would have had the most demanding security needs and faced the most intense hacking threats?
http://www.denverpost.com/2015/08/19...ver-in-denver/
Oh. Good point. She had resigned by then hadn't she? So it didn't really matter who did it in 2013. She wasn't even a government employee at the time.

According to a link posted earlier, the same people who had handled her IT during the campaign, or something like that, did the Chappaqua basement server. I'm sure people who followed this more closely can provide a better answer.

And I would still be surprised if it was as open as they like to say it was. I have to believe that some people around her understood security. The whole point was to keep her stuff from being seen by people she didn't want to see it, specifically congresscritters. Surely she had a clue that there was something called security and encryption, and hired IT people who knew that.

One thing I always find amusing from the right wingers complaining about it is that Hannity, at least, frequently says, "We know the Russians tried to hack into it." He says that as if that was proof it was insecure. Sean, I hate to tell you this, but the fact that we know they tried to hack it, and failed, is proof that there was at least some level of security involved, good enough to beat "the Russians". (I put that in quotes because "the Russians" could mean agents of Russian intelligence, or it could mean two guys in a Russian basement looking to plant a virus.)
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2016, 08:01 AM   #379
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,511
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
<>
According to a link posted earlier, the same people who had handled her IT during the campaign, or something like that, did the Chappaqua basement server. I'm sure people who followed this more closely can provide a better answer.
Brian Pagliano.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clintons...server-upkeep/

IT professional Bryan Pagliano was paid $5,000 for "computer services" by the Clintons before he joined the State Department staff, the Washington Post first reported. After he started working at the department in May 2009, however, Pagliano continued to receive payments from the Clinton family to maintain the server, the newspaper reports.
....
Pagliano himself served as the IT director for Clinton in her 2008 presidential campaign and has since worked for her political action committee.

also:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...0f8_story.html


Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
And I would still be surprised if it was as open as they like to say it was. I have to believe that some people around her understood security. The whole point was to keep her stuff from being seen by people she didn't want to see it, specifically congresscritters. Surely she had a clue that there was something called security and encryption, and hired IT people who knew that.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/12/do...d-for-the-job/

His first job, which was set at the GS-15 pay grade, was that of information technology specialist. His official job duties are still unknown, but while he performed them he was also in charge of managing Clinton’s email system.
His resume shows he had only basic computer networking certifications, and none that would have provided the foundation for protecting a sensitive email system like Clinton’s. In addition to certifications in MSCE NT and 2000, CCNA, A+, and CCA, Pagliano had a political science degree from Emory University.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...4ec_story.html

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.

Few could have known it, but the email system operated in those first two months without the standard encryption generally used on the Internet to protect communication, according to an independent analysis that Venafi Inc., a cybersecurity firm that specializes in the encryption process, took upon itself to publish on its website after the scandal broke.

Not until March 29, 2009 — two months after Clinton began using it — did the server receive a “digital certificate” that protected communication over the Internet through encryption, according to Venafi’s analysis.

It is unknown whether the system had some other way to encrypt the email traffic at the time. Without encryption — a process that scrambles communication for anyone without the correct key — email, attachments and passwords are transmitted in plain text.

“That means that anyone could have accessed it. Anyone,” Kevin Bocek, vice president of threat intelligence at Venafi, told The Post.

The system had other features that made it vulnerable to talented hackers, including a software program that enabled users to log on directly from the World Wide Web.


Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
One thing I always find amusing from the right wingers complaining about it is that Hannity, at least, frequently says, "We know the Russians tried to hack into it." He says that as if that was proof it was insecure. Sean, I hate to tell you this, but the fact that we know they tried to hack it, and failed, is proof that there was at least some level of security involved, good enough to beat "the Russians". (I put that in quotes because "the Russians" could mean agents of Russian intelligence, or it could mean two guys in a Russian basement looking to plant a virus.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...4ec_story.html

In a statement, Clinton’s campaign said the server was protected but declined to provide technical details. Clinton officials have said that server logs given to authorities show no signs of hacking.

“The security and integrity of her family’s electronic communications was taken seriously from the onset when it was first set up for President Clinton’s team,” the statement said. “Suffice it to say, robust protections were put in place and additional upgrades and techniques employed over time as they became available, including consulting and employing third party experts.”

The statement added that “there is no evidence there was ever a breach.”


TL;DR;
  • IT dept was a political appointee with some IT knowledge.
  • Software was likely windows server2008 running exchange.
  • Remote Desktop was enabled at some point
  • They did not purchase a versign SSL cert until 3 months after the server was running.
  • Clinton officials claim server was not hacked because they reviewed the logs and didn't see any signs of intrusions - this has been seconded by anonymous law enforcement officials.
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2016, 11:04 AM   #380
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 3,957
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Believe it. We're on Part III of this discussion already, and we've addressed issues related to the sophistication and security of her server in depth. There is no evidence that it had anything better than average security and lots of evidence that it had worse.
Really? What evidence is that? Are you going to link to that ******** blog that you linked to before? The fact is, there's no real strong evidence either way, unless of course you wear partisan blinders.

The only thing you got right in that sentence is that it was discussed. Everything other than that is garbage.

Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
*snip* Platte River had hardware dedicated to Hillary's email that was physically located in a room which had previously been a bathroom (before Platte River moved in).
So it wasn't in a bathroom at all is what you're saying? Weird that certain conservatives leave that information out. I didn't mean weird, I meant pathetic. It's pathetic that they leave that information out.

Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Once the server was moved to Platte River, Platte River (unbeknownst to Hillary and her team) engaged a company called Datto to do periodic backups of the server and store the data in their cloud. When the server was sent to Platte River, Hillary's team asked that the storage options be set to permanently erase any deleted emails older than 30 days. However, because of the Datto backups, not all of those deleted emails were permanently erased from existence.
To which Hillary made the decision to turn over those backups.

She certainly didn't manage her own email server to keep things secret from Russia. Do you honestly think that crossed her mind as a motive at all? I don't.

Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
You would lose.



You would lose.
You're so wrong here it's funny. You're insistence on downplaying Platte River as some mom and pop shop is laughably erroneous. Outside of mishandling customers data, the server wasn't compromised that we can find. I know, you desperately want that to not be the case, but it is the case.

Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Well, prepare to be dreadfully disappointed. I'm a little surprised that you know so little at this point, given that you seem pretty intelligent and pretty well informed otherwise. I guess that explains why she's on the verge of being anointed the Democratic nominee.
I'm a little surprised you continue to march out long debunked ******** as some form of quality argument. Given the fact that the details of her server haven't been released and none of us know the truth, it's funny you make all of these definitive statements.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2016, 11:52 AM   #381
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,511
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Where in that wall of text does the FBI indicate it does anything but investigate criminal matters? The current Director isn't familiar with the term "security inquiry" so I think it stands to reason the FBI doesn't do "security inquiries."
https://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...guidelines.pdf

FBI RESPONSIBILITIES -FEDERAL CRIMES, THREATS TO THE
NATIONAL SECURITY, FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE

Part 11of these Guidelines authorizes the FBI to carry out investigations to detect, obtain information about, or prevent or protect against federal crimes or threats to the national security or to collect foreign intelligence. The major subject areas of information gathering activities under these Guidelines federal crimes, threats to the national security, and foreign intelligence -are not distinct, but rather overlap extensively. For example, an investigation relating to international terrorism will invariably crosscut these areas because international terrorism is included under these Guidelines' definition of "threat to the national security," because international terrorism subject to investigation within the United States usually involves criminal acts that violate federal law, and because information relating to international terrorism also falls within the definition of "foreign intelligence."
Likewise, counterintelligence activities relating to espionage are likely to concern matters that constitute threats to the national security, that implicate violations or potential violations of federal espionage laws, and that involve information falling under the definition of "foreign intelligence." While some distinctions in the requirements and procedures for investigations are necessary in different subject areas, the general design of these Guidelines is to take a uniform approach wherever possible, thereby promoting certainty and consistency regarding the applicable standards and facilitating compliance with those standards. Hence, these Guidelines do not require that the FBI's information gathering activities be differentially labeled as "criminal investigations," "national security investigations," or "foreign intelligence collections," or that the categories of FBI personnel who cany out investigations be segregated fiom each other based on the subject areas in which they operate. Rather, all of the FBI's legal authorities are available for deployment in all cases to which they apply to protect the public fiom crimes and threats to the national security and to further the United States' foreign intelligence objectives. In many cases, a single investigation will be supportable as an exercise of a number of these authorities - i.e., as an investigation of a federal crime or crimes, as an investigation of a threat to the national security, andlor as a collection of foreign intelligence.

Threats to the National Security
...
Activities within the definition of "threat to the national security" that are subject to investigation under these Guidelines commonly involve violations (or potential violations) of federal criminal laws. Hence, investigations of such threats may constitute an exercise both of the FBI's criminal investigation authority and of the FBI's authority to investigate threats to the national security. As with criminal investigations generally, detecting and solving the crimes, and eventually arresting and prosecuting the perpetrators, are likely to be among the objectives of investigations relating to threats to the national security. But these investigations also often serve important purposes outside the ambit of normal criminal investigation and prosecution, by providing the basis for, and informing decisions concerning, other measures needed to protect the national security. These measures may include, for example: excluding or removing persons involved in terrorism or espionage from the United States; recruitment of double agents; freezing assets of organizations that engage in or support terrorism; securing targets of terrorism or espionage; providing threat information and warnings to other federal, state, local, and private agencies and entities; diplomatic or military actions; and actions by other intelligence agencies to counter international terrorism or other national security threats.



I think the above document clearly spells out that the FBI conducts multiple types of investigations, including criminal investigations and security investigations.

The fact that this for this matter the IC IG did not make a criminal referral- it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes. , and the fact that Comey would not acknowledge to a specific question that it was a criminal investigation:
Catherine: So it’s a criminal investigation?
Director Comey: We’re conducting an investigation. That’s the bureau’s business. That’s what we do. That’s probably all I can say about it.
might lead someone being skeptical to hesitate to say it's clearly a criminal investigation.

YMMV
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2016, 12:56 PM   #382
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,679
Thanks to those who have provided information.

My experience with topics like this is that they are so filled with partisan claims that it is almost impossible to get to the truth. For example, I mentioned Hannity's "server in the bathroom" claims. Now, I know where that claim comes from, and, as expected, it's Hannity hogwash. Likewise, a few other claims are such wild distortions that they cannot be trusted, which means I don't trust other claims from the same sources.

As for the overall issues related to Hillary and the private server, I know a lot more than I did before, but nothing really of substance. I know it was "an ordinary server", running this or that operating system and Exchange, but I also know enough to know that tells me absolutely zero about whether or not it was secure. It is possible to build easily penetrated servers on those platforms, and it is possible to build incredibly secure systems on those platforms.

I now know that the person maintaining her server was someone who worked on the campaign, and got a nice job at the State Department, which tells me that Hillary had influence to get her friends good jobs. Oh, there's a shocker. You mean....government employees are not always selected purely on merit? Say it ain't so.

Beyond that, there's nothing sufficiently significant to make me want to dig through available material to learn more. I might go to the effort of reading the report that the State Department recently released. It's supposed to be quite critical of Hillary, but I find that media accounts of such things are often full of distortions and errors, so it might be interesting to find out what was actually said.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 20th June 2016 at 12:58 PM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2016, 01:17 PM   #383
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,511
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Thanks to those who have provided information.

My experience with topics like this is that they are so filled with partisan claims that it is almost impossible to get to the truth. For example, I mentioned Hannity's "server in the bathroom" claims. Now, I know where that claim comes from, and, as expected, it's Hannity hogwash. Likewise, a few other claims are such wild distortions that they cannot be trusted, which means I don't trust other claims from the same sources.

As for the overall issues related to Hillary and the private server, I know a lot more than I did before, but nothing really of substance. I know it was "an ordinary server", running this or that operating system and Exchange, but I also know enough to know that tells me absolutely zero about whether or not it was secure. It is possible to build easily penetrated servers on those platforms, and it is possible to build incredibly secure systems on those platforms.
As an IT security professional, I disagree with the latter sentiment, especially back in 2008.

And while we don't know the specifics, it does appear they no IDS/IPS and were simply running COTS & windows software. Not really the stuff the "incredibly secure systems" systems are made of, again - especially back in 2008.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I now know that the person maintaining her server was someone who worked on the campaign, and got a nice job at the State Department, which tells me that Hillary had influence to get her friends good jobs. Oh, there's a shocker. You mean....government employees are not always selected purely on merit? Say it ain't so.
No, but it does let you know that her network administrator was a "who-you-know" not "what-you-know".

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Beyond that, there's nothing sufficiently significant to make me want to dig through available material to learn more. I might go to the effort of reading the report that the State Department recently released. It's supposed to be quite critical of Hillary, but I find that media accounts of such things are often full of distortions and errors, so it might be interesting to find out what was actually said.
Well, thanks for stopping in. I'm not really sure what information you expected to learn that a quick google would not have informed you of.
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2016, 01:22 PM   #384
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,883
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Thanks to those who have provided information.

My experience with topics like this is that they are so filled with partisan claims that it is almost impossible to get to the truth. For example, I mentioned Hannity's "server in the bathroom" claims. Now, I know where that claim comes from, and, as expected, it's Hannity hogwash. Likewise, a few other claims are such wild distortions that they cannot be trusted, which means I don't trust other claims from the same sources.

As for the overall issues related to Hillary and the private server, I know a lot more than I did before, but nothing really of substance. I know it was "an ordinary server", running this or that operating system and Exchange, but I also know enough to know that tells me absolutely zero about whether or not it was secure. It is possible to build easily penetrated servers on those platforms, and it is possible to build incredibly secure systems on those platforms.

I now know that the person maintaining her server was someone who worked on the campaign, and got a nice job at the State Department, which tells me that Hillary had influence to get her friends good jobs. Oh, there's a shocker. You mean....government employees are not always selected purely on merit? Say it ain't so.

Beyond that, there's nothing sufficiently significant to make me want to dig through available material to learn more. I might go to the effort of reading the report that the State Department recently released. It's supposed to be quite critical of Hillary, but I find that media accounts of such things are often full of distortions and errors, so it might be interesting to find out what was actually said.
I can summarize the most interesting parts of the IG report for you:

(1) Hillary's email setup was unique;
(2) Hillary never asked for anybody's official opinion or approval with respect to the server;
(3) If Hillary had asked, she would have been told it was not allowed;
(4) It was not allowed under rules in force since the start of her tenure;
(5) She violated the Federal Records Act;
(6) She caused the State Department to give misleading answers to FOIA requests;
(7) She explicitly turned down the offer of having an official state department email account;
(8) Prying bean counters were told "never to speak of [Hillary's]" email setup again;
(9) several emails were found which were not part of the trove that Hillary had given back to the State Department;
(10) one of those emails was from the IT guy in charge of her setup explaining how there were two attempts to break into the server, and he had to shut down the server twice to stop them;
(11) those attempted hacks were never reported to anybody in government who might have needed to know.

TL;DR
An absolutely mind-boggling dereliction of duty. I am still mildly stunned by the egregiousness and brazenness of her transgressions. If this were a regular employee, there is no doubt in my mind, he would get a significant jail sentence.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2016, 02:28 PM   #385
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 3,957
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
No, but it does let you know that her network administrator was a "who-you-know" not "what-you-know".
I know it's not the best way to know, but he had several certifications that led me to believe he was qualified. To pass the CCNA is not very easy. You have to all about ACL's, network operating systems, and so on.

While, again, I can't make any specific claims about the server, this guy didn't seem to be a newb or anything. He had experience.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2016, 02:41 PM   #386
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 17,073
he did a crappy job setting up the server
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2016, 02:42 PM   #387
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,511
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
I know it's not the best way to know, but he had several certifications that led me to believe he was qualified. To pass the CCNA is not very easy. You have to all about ACL's, network operating systems, and so on.

While, again, I can't make any specific claims about the server, this guy didn't seem to be a newb or anything. He had experience.
He wasn't a neophyte, but a CCNA doesn't really qualify you to set up and secure services like email, or the platform itself. I'd say his MCSE was at least a little useful for that.

Then again, he might have had a ******** experience from her 2008 campaign IT infrastructure.

I didn't put any of my post in the best light, because, at the end of the day, it seemed like it just wasn't well thought out ... and clearly not in a CYA sort of way.
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2016, 02:51 PM   #388
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,492
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
TL;DR
An absolutely mind-boggling dereliction of duty. I am still mildly stunned by the egregiousness and brazenness of her transgressions. If this were a regular employee, there is no doubt in my mind, he would get a significant jail sentence.
You didn't mention the classified emails on the server. I certainly think that's as well proven as anything else you've noted in the IG report. For that to be found in violation of the espionage act there need not be intent, nor does it matter if the server was hacked or not. All that's required is gross negligence.

If this were a regular employee they would already be in jail....
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2016, 03:18 PM   #389
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,679
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
If this were a regular employee they would already be in jail....
A guy I worked with at Hughes Aircraft once went home from work, carrying classified (SECRET) documents with him. He stopped at a bar. While he was in the bar, his car was stolen. His car was recovered, but the documents were gone.


He was fired. And then rehired three years later. He was never prosecuted, nor was any legal action of any sort taken against him.

(This was before email, but back in the days when there was a Soviet Union.)


I love hearing about what would happen to regular employees in cases like this. No, really. In fact, I read in that State Department report about regular employees using Hotmail and gmail accounts, and I didn't read anything about those employees being prosecuted. Of course, they didn't investigate those employee accounts to see if those people received any email that was not classified, but was subsequently considered classified. On the other hand, the report did not that it was against State Department policy, and most people understand that if you are using gmail, google's bots are reading your mail.

This is what I meant by my ealier comment. There is so much partisanship in the interpretations that it is hard to dig through the B.S. to get to some facts. I have only skimmed that State Department report, but by tl;dr version of things wouldn't read the same as sunmaster14's. I'll reserve judgement until I've had a chance to look at it more closely, but I would tentatively say it would be more like, "Secretary Clinton sidestepped around a lot of regulations, and did so in a way that made it impossible to fully comply with various government record keeping and disclosure laws, such as the Freedom of Information Act."
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2016, 03:57 PM   #390
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,492
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
A guy I worked with at Hughes Aircraft once went home from work, carrying classified (SECRET) documents with him. He stopped at a bar. While he was in the bar, his car was stolen. His car was recovered, but the documents were gone.
I'm curious. Did he really have over 2000 classified documents, some Top Secret (SCI)?


He was fired. And then rehired three years later. He was never prosecuted, nor was any legal action of any sort taken against him.

(This was before email, but back in the days when there was a Soviet Union.)

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I love hearing about what would happen to regular employees in cases like this. No, really. In fact, I read in that State Department report about regular employees using Hotmail and gmail accounts, and I didn't read anything about those employees being prosecuted. Of course, they didn't investigate those employee accounts to see if those people received any email that was not classified, but was subsequently considered classified. On the other hand, the report did not that it was against State Department policy, and most people understand that if you are using gmail, google's bots are reading your mail.
So, you buy that explanation, huh? Perhaps a few at the Confidential Level, which is sometimes over used, but a significant number perhaps in the thousands?

This is what I meant by my ealier comment. There is so much partisanship in the interpretations that it is hard to dig through the B.S. to get to some facts. I have only skimmed that State Department report, but by tl;dr version of things wouldn't read the same as sunmaster14's. I'll reserve judgement until I've had a chance to look at it more closely, but I would tentatively say it would be more like, "Secretary Clinton sidestepped around a lot of regulations, and did so in a way that made it impossible to fully comply with various government record keeping and disclosure laws, such as the Freedom of Information Act."[/quote]

Sure, and there's some right here too...
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2016, 04:39 PM   #391
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,679
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
I'm curious. Did he really have over 2000 classified documents, some Top Secret (SCI)?
No. He had at least one.

Quote:
So, you buy that explanation, huh?
Yeah. Why wouldn't I?

I'm no expert on classified documents, but I have held a secret clearance. (And, I kid you not, a couple of other that I cannot name.....although I have read of them in very public places) So, here's my favorite anecdote about my days as a guy with a security clearance.

While my clearance was pending, I always had to leave the room when the "good parts" of the program were discussed, and I had this huge, thick, document, but it seemed like key parts were missing. Clearances took a few months to process back then (I have no idea what they take now), but finally my clearance came in. I was very excited to get the document that contained the "missing" parts of the previous document. I turned in my receipt. I signed across the seal. I took it back to my office. I closed and locked the door to the office. I opened the door to the safe (the door to the safe always had to be open if you were reading classified documents) I broke the seal on the envelope. I opened up the envelope and took out the documents and.................I had written it.

Yeah. It was my document. The only thing SECRET on that portion of the whole darned program was my work.

This left me with a quandary. It was in the days before email, but not before word processors. That document, which I held in my hot little hands in my locked office, was sitting on a hard disk in the unclassified computer lab.

I left it there. A clear violation of regulations. Nay, not merely such, a crime.

Well, sort of. I asked my boss what to do and he said don't bother about it. The thing that made it classified was not actually militarily significant, although it looked like it could be to someone who didn't know better, like, say, the guy who had marked it as classified. The data was also obsolete. It wasn't worth the effort.

I've read some of the stories about Hillary's handling of classified documents, and I know enough to know that in some cases her explanation is obviously correct, and in other cases, is perfectly plausible and unsuspicious.

Skimming through the Inspector General's report (I previously called it a State Department report), what I think I see is a certain arrogance of power, but nothing that would land anyone in jail.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2016, 05:09 PM   #392
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,115
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
No. He had at least one.



Yeah. Why wouldn't I?

I'm no expert on classified documents, but I have held a secret clearance. (And, I kid you not, a couple of other that I cannot name.....although I have read of them in very public places) So, here's my favorite anecdote about my days as a guy with a security clearance.

While my clearance was pending, I always had to leave the room when the "good parts" of the program were discussed, and I had this huge, thick, document, but it seemed like key parts were missing. Clearances took a few months to process back then (I have no idea what they take now), but finally my clearance came in. I was very excited to get the document that contained the "missing" parts of the previous document. I turned in my receipt. I signed across the seal. I took it back to my office. I closed and locked the door to the office. I opened the door to the safe (the door to the safe always had to be open if you were reading classified documents) I broke the seal on the envelope. I opened up the envelope and took out the documents and.................I had written it.

Yeah. It was my document. The only thing SECRET on that portion of the whole darned program was my work.

This left me with a quandary. It was in the days before email, but not before word processors. That document, which I held in my hot little hands in my locked office, was sitting on a hard disk in the unclassified computer lab.

I left it there. A clear violation of regulations. Nay, not merely such, a crime.

Well, sort of. I asked my boss what to do and he said don't bother about it. The thing that made it classified was not actually militarily significant, although it looked like it could be to someone who didn't know better, like, say, the guy who had marked it as classified. The data was also obsolete. It wasn't worth the effort.

I've read some of the stories about Hillary's handling of classified documents, and I know enough to know that in some cases her explanation is obviously correct, and in other cases, is perfectly plausible and unsuspicious.

Skimming through the Inspector General's report (I previously called it a State Department report), what I think I see is a certain arrogance of power, but nothing that would land anyone in jail.
The IG report did not deal with classified topics in deference to the FBI investigation. But you read stories about Hillary's handling of classified documents, which was correct OR plausible.

Ok.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2016, 05:15 PM   #393
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,492
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I left it there. A clear violation of regulations. Nay, not merely such, a crime.
Your anecdotes illustrate a cavalier attitude toward classified material that is totally foreign to me. Sounds as if you worked in the aircraft industry, which is perhaps a bit different than Operational matters, which I'm more familiar and worked with. That included Nuclear Weapons related operational material and procedures.

That's some of what the State Dept was dealing with (not likely Nuclear related), but certainly current operational matters. One of the latest leaks indicated that Clinton approved or disapproved operational Drone strikes in Pakistan on her unclassified Blackberry. That is clearly a violation of not only security procedures, but also of common sense.

I get a different sense and have a completely different take on how she handled and regarded legitimately Classified Documents and information.

Her story has been evolving and changing from the very beginning. Much of what she's said has been proven totally false. As a result, I can't believe what she says even if she says the sky is blue. I wouldn't believe her until I checked for myself. She has proven to be a congenital liar.
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2016, 05:52 PM   #394
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
TL;DR;
  • IT dept was a political appointee with some IT knowledge.
  • Software was likely windows server2008 running exchange.
  • Remote Desktop was enabled at some point
  • They did not purchase a versign SSL cert until 3 months after the server was running.
  • Clinton officials claim server was not hacked because they reviewed the logs and didn't see any signs of intrusions - this has been seconded by anonymous law enforcement officials.
There was a lot I didn't know there. You clearly have been following this closely. The betting odds have consistently given Biden/Bernie a combined 5% chance of winning for a long time. https://electionbettingodds.com/

I think this reflects around a 4% chance that Clinton will get indicted AND have to drop out of the race and a 1% chance of some Black Swan event happening, where she can't run.

Would you give indictment 1/25 odds?
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2016, 05:58 PM   #395
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,679
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
Your anecdotes illustrate a cavalier attitude toward classified material that is totally foreign to me. Sounds as if you worked in the aircraft industry, which is perhaps a bit different than Operational matters, which I'm more familiar and worked with. That included Nuclear Weapons related operational material and procedures.
Aerospace, but basically the same thing. Pure civilian stuff. Our customer was military (Air Force Space Command), but we were just engineers using tax dollars to play with some really neat toys.

And it was "Star Wars" (ie SDI) stuff, so not ever likely to see the real world anyway.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2016, 05:56 AM   #396
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,511
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
There was a lot I didn't know there. You clearly have been following this closely. The betting odds have consistently given Biden/Bernie a combined 5% chance of winning for a long time. https://electionbettingodds.com/

I think this reflects around a 4% chance that Clinton will get indicted AND have to drop out of the race and a 1% chance of some Black Swan event happening, where she can't run.

Would you give indictment 1/25 odds?
I don't think any of the above has much to do with being indicted, and I certainly don't have any special insight.

I've already laid out my reasoning, and a lot of it has to do with being allowed to continue the nominating process without a leak about what's going to happen, and being endorsed by someone who ought to have a clue about what's going to happen.
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2016, 07:05 AM   #397
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,492
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
I've already laid out my reasoning, and a lot of it has to do with being allowed to continue the nominating process without a leak about what's going to happen, and being endorsed by someone who ought to have a clue about what's going to happen.
You may be right. However, I'll tell you this. If the report is not thorough in justifying why she's not being indicted, specifically and very, very clear, then she will be impeached not later than three months in office, if she wins. If you don't mind going thru that hell, then by all means vote for her.

I won't predict what will happen if King Obama pardons her. I fear for the future of my country.
__________________
[Noc]

Last edited by Reheat; 21st June 2016 at 07:09 AM.
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2016, 12:21 PM   #398
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,511
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
You may be right. However, I'll tell you this. If the report is not thorough in justifying why she's not being indicted, specifically and very, very clear, then she will be impeached not later than three months in office, if she wins. If you don't mind going thru that hell, then by all means vote for her.
Charges won't be recommended, she won't be indicted, she won't be impeached.

And I have absolutely no problem voting for her when the other viable candidate is Donald Trump.

Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
I won't predict what will happen if King Obama pardons her. I fear for the future of my country.
I don't think we live in the same realities.
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2016, 12:37 PM   #399
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,861
Oh, the cackling of Hillary as she did after the sodomization and murder of Qadaffi tells us all we need to know in conjunction with one key fact:

Obama not only knew, but used the email himself. So whatever you are charging Hillary with for communicating with the President this way... uh, what about the president himself?

This is so blindingly obvious even if he only knew but did not act. He is in charge. Why did he tolerate it? Obama comes out looking bad no matter what.

So Obama has been out there excusing Hillary, saying there was no foul. How can he know? What he really means is that HE committed no foul in doing it himself and tolerating his Secretary of State conducting her corruption, using political office for personal gain, instead of putting a stop to it.

So he has to pardon, even if he can impede indictments up to his last day in office.
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2016, 12:39 PM   #400
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,410
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
....
I won't predict what will happen if King Obama pardons her. I fear for the future of my country.
If Obama wore a crown, he'd have a lot easier time getting his program through Congress.

The Presidential pardon question is interesting. I doubt that Clinton will be indicted for anything; at worst, there might be some kind of misdemeanor agreement that she failed to secure documents and promises not to do it again. But there wouldn't be anything to stop the President from pardoning her, and anybody who works for her.

Bush I pardoned half-a-dozen Reagan officials, including the SecDef, accused of Iran-Contra misconduct.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ply&p=11344320

Clinton pardoned big contributor Marc Rich, Whitewater figure Susan McDougal, ex-HousingSec Henry Cisneros, and CIA Director John Deutch.

Obama could easily say that after reviewing the matter, he's determined that Clinton had no criminal intent and did no harm to U.S. interests, and that therefore a pardon was appropriate. I don't even think it would hurt her much against Trump.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.