Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Flagg wrote:So killing 22 people vs 1500 is ok?
If it's wrong for Hillary then it's wrong for Powell and Rice. That's the bottom fucking line. But since this is just one more disingenuous Republican witch hunt, like Bengazi, Whitewater, Vince Foster, and every other Clinton "scandal", it's much ado about nothing until proven otherwise.TimothyC wrote:Flagg wrote:So killing 22 people vs 1500 is ok?
Flagg, think about this. On one hand we have 22 emails over eight years where we have classified material being sent over unsecured systems. On the other hand, we have someone who sent everything over an unsecured system, and has been changing her story.
Also remember, 1500 is the floor. We don't know the contents of the emails that were never handed over. But you know, vast right wing conspiracy and all that.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. If the DOJ decides to charge her for crimes and then prosecute, then I assume they have actual cause and I don't take issue with that.aerius wrote:Flagg, you're essentially arguing that because they didn't prosecute people for certain crimes in the past, they shouldn't prosecute someone for those same crimes today. Or that if they go after someone today, they need to go back and whack everyone who's ever committed the same crime in the past. So basically, if a cop gunned down a black guy 10 years ago and got away with it, we shouldn't even bother bringing any charges against cops today if they shoot a black person. You really don't want to go there.
Timothy's right. It is plausible that there are a certain number of false positives involved, whether from information being declared secret after it's been in the system for a while or because the same information was obtained from multiple sources. But if those false positives run into the dozens, that doesn't explain Hillary's running into the thousands.TimothyC wrote:Flagg wrote:So killing 22 people vs 1500 is ok?
Flagg, think about this. On one hand we have 22 emails over eight years where we have classified material being sent over unsecured systems. On the other hand, we have someone who sent everything over an unsecured system, and has been changing her story.
Also remember, 1500 is the floor. We don't know the contents of the emails that were never handed over. But you know, vast right wing conspiracy and all that.
Now is pretty much when people start making bets on what she herself was careful enough to send I guess?Mr Bean wrote:The FBI confirm the investigation
Also note the wording, Hillary has maintained this is a security review on her server. The FBI says they are currently investigating matters related to Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.
That's not the language of a security review... that's the language you use when you've already found something and your getting your ducks in a row before charges are going to be filed.
Yeah, it's also 8 years after the fact, so there very well may be hundreds (1500 isn't "thousands") of Powell and Rice emails that fit the same category as the ones alleged against Clinton. But you know, Democrats didn't have a vendetta against either of them and start Congressional hearings the second they were able to in order to score political points.Grumman wrote:Timothy's right. It is plausible that there are a certain number of false positives involved, whether from information being declared secret after it's been in the system for a while or because the same information was obtained from multiple sources. But if those false positives run into the dozens, that doesn't explain Hillary's running into the thousands.TimothyC wrote:Flagg wrote:So killing 22 people vs 1500 is ok?
Flagg, think about this. On one hand we have 22 emails over eight years where we have classified material being sent over unsecured systems. On the other hand, we have someone who sent everything over an unsecured system, and has been changing her story.
Also remember, 1500 is the floor. We don't know the contents of the emails that were never handed over. But you know, vast right wing conspiracy and all that.
Being 8 years after the fact would make the number of false positives increase, not the number of genuine security breaches. If, for example, Powell openly discussed something that the CIA later tried to have classified ten years after the fact - information ten years out of date - it would be fucking stupid to hold Powell's lack of prescience against him.Flagg wrote:Yeah, it's also 8 years after the fact, so there very well may be hundreds (1500 isn't "thousands") of Powell and Rice emails that fit the same category as the ones alleged against Clinton.Grumman wrote:Timothy's right. It is plausible that there are a certain number of false positives involved, whether from information being declared secret after it's been in the system for a while or because the same information was obtained from multiple sources. But if those false positives run into the dozens, that doesn't explain Hillary's running into the thousands.
No, what I'm saying is that 8 years after the fact the same type of emails and private system Clinton is alleged to have used have more time to disappear. So my stance is that it's more than likely that any possible "evidence" against Powell and Rice would disappear over time deliberately or accidentally, as opposed to Clinton's. Especially since the Republican jackals were all over her the second her resignation took effect.Grumman wrote:Being 8 years after the fact would make the number of false positives increase, not the number of genuine security breaches. If, for example, Powell openly discussed something that the CIA later tried to have classified ten years after the fact - information ten years out of date - it would be fucking stupid to hold Powell's lack of prescience against him.Flagg wrote:Yeah, it's also 8 years after the fact, so there very well may be hundreds (1500 isn't "thousands") of Powell and Rice emails that fit the same category as the ones alleged against Clinton.Grumman wrote:Timothy's right. It is plausible that there are a certain number of false positives involved, whether from information being declared secret after it's been in the system for a while or because the same information was obtained from multiple sources. But if those false positives run into the dozens, that doesn't explain Hillary's running into the thousands.
Big words from the guy who claims that "no one gave two shits about it when other people did it". Tu quoque much? Or can only you whine about fallacies?Flagg wrote: Too bad you can't get jail time or fines for blatant strawmen.
Then why have they not hauled Conaleeza Rice and Colin Powell in the hearings when they did the same fucking thing, you imbecile? Oh right, because it's another Clinton witch-hunt.
Actually, I have sent letters to my (D) rep about it, and I got a "get fucked here is a generic form letter about information security" in response. Same from Kaine and Warner.And the fact that you would face fines or jail time while cabinet members don't is a valid issue. Maybe you should write your congress members and demand that they hold all officials to the standards you are, no matter thier last name or party affiliation.
Actually, it says she did basically what Secretaries before her did. Apparently, this is not in line with Department policies but it is curious that nobody seemed to have cared until now.Exonerate wrote:The State Department IG came out with a new report and it does not reflect Clinton in a positive light at all. No permission for the server, telling staff to shut up when they brought up concerns, evidence of attempted intrusions, etc.
If the Democrats have any shred of competence, they'd start looking hard at an alternative to Hillary if they haven't already. Bernie 2016!
You can read the rest of the article through my link above. So like Vince Foster, White Water and Benghazi. It's much ado about nothing. It hasn't stopped the BernieBros from jizzing their pants though.Forbes: State Department Report On Email Vindicates Clinton Rather Than Nails Her wrote:The report released Wednesday by the State Department Inspector General on its email records management is being reported as heavy-duty criticism of former Secretary Hillary Clinton. However, the report has more in it that vindicates Clinton than nails her.
It does not add any new serious charges or adverse facts. And, it shows she was less out of line with her predecessors, notably Colin Powell, than has been charged. Powell’s handling of his email was so similar, in fact, that when House Republicans drag this issue through hearings up to Election Day, Powell should be called as a witness – a witness for Clinton. To put it differently, she is having a double standard applied to her. Here are five key aspects of the report.
Yep nothing there, the Secretary of State was using a private email server for government work which contained hundreds of SECRET or higher emails and she thought she had been hacked on two occasions and never reported it to Network Security that's just a minor everyday thing that all Secretary of State have done before her.ESP-16-03 wrote: [159 In another incident occurring on May 13, 2011, **two of Secretary Clinton’s immediate staff discussed via email the Secretary’s concern that someone was “hacking into her email” after she received an email with a suspicious link. Several hours later, Secretary Clinton received an email from the personal account of then-Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs that also had a link to a suspect website. The next morning, Secretary Clinton replied to the email with the following message to the Under Secretary: “Is this really from you? I was worried about opening it!”** Department policy requires employees to report cybersecurity incidents to IRM security officials when any improper cyber-security practice comes to their attention. 12 FAM 592.4 (January 10, 2007). **Notification is required when a user suspects compromise of, among other things, a personally owned device containing personally identifiable information. 12 FAM 682.2-6 (August 4, 2008).** ***However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department
On January 9, 2011, the non-Departmental advisor to President Clinton who provided technical support to the Clinton email system notified the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations that he had to shut down the server because he believed “someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to.” Later that day, the advisor again wrote to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, “We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min.” On January 10, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations emailed the Chief of Staff and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Planning and instructed them not to email the Secretary “anything sensitive” and stated that she could “explain more in person.
I'm waiting for BernieBros to start shooting melons wrapped in packing tape to try and "prove" Clinton killed Vince Foster.bobalot wrote:Actually, it says she did basically what Secretaries before her did. Apparently, this is not in line with Department policies but it is curious that nobody seemed to have cared until now.Exonerate wrote:The State Department IG came out with a new report and it does not reflect Clinton in a positive light at all. No permission for the server, telling staff to shut up when they brought up concerns, evidence of attempted intrusions, etc.
If the Democrats have any shred of competence, they'd start looking hard at an alternative to Hillary if they haven't already. Bernie 2016!
You can read the rest of the article through my link above. So like Vince Foster, White Water and Benghazi. It's much ado about nothing. It hasn't stopped the BernieBros from jizzing their pants though.Forbes: State Department Report On Email Vindicates Clinton Rather Than Nails Her wrote:The report released Wednesday by the State Department Inspector General on its email records management is being reported as heavy-duty criticism of former Secretary Hillary Clinton. However, the report has more in it that vindicates Clinton than nails her.
It does not add any new serious charges or adverse facts. And, it shows she was less out of line with her predecessors, notably Colin Powell, than has been charged. Powell’s handling of his email was so similar, in fact, that when House Republicans drag this issue through hearings up to Election Day, Powell should be called as a witness – a witness for Clinton. To put it differently, she is having a double standard applied to her. Here are five key aspects of the report.
Which former secretary of state did ALL of their email on a private server?bobalot wrote: Actually, it says she did basically what Secretaries before her did. Apparently, this is not in line with Department policies but it is curious that nobody seemed to have cared until now.
For an official TL;DR on the story, here's the clarification posted at the bottom:WASHINGTON (AP) — State Department staffers wrestled for weeks in December 2010 over a serious technical problem that affected emails from then-Secretary Hillary Clinton's home email server, causing them to temporarily disable security features on the government's own systems, according to emails released Wednesday.
The emails were released under court order Wednesday to the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch, which has sued the State Department over access to public records related to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's service as the nation's top diplomat between 2009 and 2013.
The emails, reviewed by The Associated Press, show that State Department technical staff disabled software on their systems intended to block phishing emails that could deliver dangerous viruses. They were trying urgently to resolve delivery problems with emails sent from Clinton's private server.
"This should trump all other activities," a senior technical official, Ken LaVolpe, told IT employees in a Dec. 17, 2010, email. Another senior State Department official, Thomas W. Lawrence, wrote days later in an email that deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin personally was asking for an update about the repairs. Abedin and Clinton, who both used Clinton's private server, had complained that emails each sent to State Department employees were not being reliably received.
After technical staffers turned off some security features, Lawrence cautioned in an email, "We view this as a Band-Aid and fear it's not 100 percent fully effective."
The AP initially reported Wednesday that the emails described security features being turned off on Clinton's own private server, but State Department spokesman John Kirby clarified hours later that the emails described "a series of troubleshooting measures to the department's system — not Secretary Clinton's system — to attempt to remedy the problem."
The emails were released under court order Wednesday to the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch, which has sued the State Department over access to public records related to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's service as the nation's top diplomat between 2009 and 2013.
Clinton has repeatedly denied there is any evidence her private email server ever was breached. Her campaign did not immediately provide comment Wednesday.
Days after the technical crisis, on Jan. 9, 2011, an IT worker was forced to shut down Clinton's server because he believed "someone was trying to hack us." Later that day, he wrote, "We were attacked again so I shut (the server) down for a few min." It was one of several occasions when email access to Clinton's BlackBerry smartphone was disrupted because her private server was down, according to the documents.
The AP reported last year that in the early morning hours of Aug. 3, 2011, Clinton received infected emails, disguised as speeding tickets from New York. The emails instructed recipients to print the attached tickets. Opening an attachment would have allowed hackers to take over control of a victim's computer.
In a blistering audit released last month, the State Department's inspector general concluded that Clinton and her team ignored clear internal guidance that her email setup broke federal standards and could leave sensitive material vulnerable to hackers. Her aides twice brushed aside concerns, in one case telling technical staff "the matter was not to be discussed further," the report said.
The State Department has released more than 52,000 pages of Clinton's work-related emails, including some that have since been classified. Clinton has withheld thousands of additional emails, saying they were personal. The emails released Wednesday were not made available until after the inspector general's office published its report, and Judicial Watch asked a federal judge to force the State Department to turn them over.
The case is one of about three dozen lawsuits over access to records related to Clinton's time as secretary, including one filed by the AP. As part of its ongoing suit, lawyers from Judicial Watch on Wednesday questioned Bryan Pagliano, a former IT staffer for Clinton who helped set up the server, under oath. According to the group, Pagliano repeatedly responded to questions by invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as he did last year before a congressional committee.
The FBI is also investigating whether Clinton's use of the private email server imperiled government secrets. It has recently interviewed Clinton's top aides, including former chief of staff Cheryl Mills and Abedin.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said in a speech Wednesday that Clinton's email server "was easily hacked by foreign governments." Trump cited no new evidence that hackers had successfully breached Clinton's server, but he said unspecified enemies of the United States were in possession of all her emails.
"So they probably now have a blackmail file over someone who wants to be President of the United States. This fact alone disqualifies her from the presidency," Trump said. "We can't hand over our government to someone whose deepest, darkest secrets may be in the hands of our enemies."
This version updates with State Department clarifying that security features on the department's computer system were disabled. An earlier version reported that the security features on Clinton's home server were disabled.
So they turned off the spam filters, big fucking deal.disabled software on their systems intended to block phishing email
What is it with people who don't understand security talking about it. Spam != phishing.Dominus Atheos wrote:So they turned off the spam filters, big fucking deal.disabled software on their systems intended to block phishing email
Imagine the headline was this: "Department of defense removes security cameras and lamps around the Pentagon because the SecDef insists on driving his own vehicle and keeps hitting the poles." That's the level of stupid we're dealing with here. It isn't about the filters, it's about the arrogance and stupidity that could easily have been avoided just by following proper procedures. But no, rules are for other people, so we should fuck everything up just because doing it right inconveniences the boss.Dominus Atheos wrote:So they turned off the spam filters, big fucking deal.
