Hillary Emails/Private Server (THREADS MERGED)

[AUDub 11,131]

I'm hoping Clinton wins just so I can see this board meltdown to apocalyptic levels.

That tells me a lot about how important you think this is.....unfortunately.

I think it's hilarious. Want to buy some gold and survival seeds? Poor rubes.

usn, if she is that dumb on technology, do you really think she will be a good President?

I used to, now i truly dont know.

I said several times i would vote for her over Jeb, still will, but now...I am really wanting to look at a Third Party Candidate if it comes down to HRC & Jeb.

The way you hear some of them talk, the SCOTUS's antiquated views on technology never cease to amaze me either.

[TitanTiger 20,469]

I'm hoping Clinton wins just so I can see this board meltdown to apocalyptic levels.

That tells me a lot about how important you think this is.....unfortunately.

I think it's hilarious. Want to buy some gold and survival seeds? Poor rubes.

AUUSN, I get that you hold more liberal views on things...but do you seriously see this as some non-issue that's little more than potential comic fodder for you?

I mean, this would be a serious breach of security protocol for just some contractor scrub with a secret clearance. For someone in her position with the clearance levels she has and the issues the go across her emails, it's inexcusable that she'd think this was ok to do in the first place. Talk about a lack of judgment.

[AUUSN 823]

I'm hoping Clinton wins just so I can see this board meltdown to apocalyptic levels.

That tells me a lot about how important you think this is.....unfortunately.

I think it's hilarious. Want to buy some gold and survival seeds? Poor rubes.

AUUSN, I get that you hold more liberal views on things...but do you seriously see this as some non-issue that's little more than potential comic fodder for you?

I mean, this would be a serious breach of security protocol for just some contractor scrub with a secret clearance. For someone in her position with the clearance levels she has and the issues the go across her emails, it's inexcusable that she'd think this was ok to do in the first place. Talk about a lack of judgment.

Titan on a pragmatic level, I completly get it but in my world, I know senior officials play loose with classified material all the time. All the time. So yes, I find this all very comical because I didnt see this level of outrage when Petraeus (a General I greatly respect) mishandled classified material.

[TitanTiger 20,469]

I'm hoping Clinton wins just so I can see this board meltdown to apocalyptic levels.

That tells me a lot about how important you think this is.....unfortunately.

I think it's hilarious. Want to buy some gold and survival seeds? Poor rubes.

AUUSN, I get that you hold more liberal views on things...but do you seriously see this as some non-issue that's little more than potential comic fodder for you?

I mean, this would be a serious breach of security protocol for just some contractor scrub with a secret clearance. For someone in her position with the clearance levels she has and the issues the go across her emails, it's inexcusable that she'd think this was ok to do in the first place. Talk about a lack of judgment.

Titan on a pragmatic level, I completly get it but in my world, I know senior officials play loose with classified material all the time. All the time. So yes, I find this all very comical because I didnt see this level of outrage when Petraeus (a General I greatly respect) mishandled classified material.

I have some experience with how classified and FOUO information is to be handled. And I can tell you that most people, had it been found they pulled some stunt like this, would be at the very least finding a new job and at worst waiting to be sentenced to some jail time. Not to mention, even if she technically broke no laws, it's a terrible breach of OPSEC. I'm talking extraordinary levels of either ignorance or hubris.

And while Petraeus initially denied wrongdoing, he eventually apologized, resigned his office and paid a $100,000 fine. And he wasn't running for President either. So that's another reason why you're not hearing the same levels of outrage. This woman wants to be given the most powerful position in the country if not the world and she's out there still making excuses, wiping servers then making wisecracks over it. Even you should be able to discern the difference in these two situations.

[AURaptor 1,121]

I'm hoping Clinton wins just so I can see this board meltdown to apocalyptic levels.

So you're for the most corrupt person ever, I see. So much for any oath to serve & protect the country.

[DKW 86 7,410]

Petraeus was busted. It was pillow talk and involved noforn on just his pc. I do not honestly recall the amount of documents. HRC is around 300 documents that were handled on a non-secure server by people without security clearances. Completely different in scale and exposure to damage.

[AUUSN 823]

Petraeus was busted. It was pillow talk and involved noforn on just his pc. I do not honestly recall the amount of documents. HRC is around 300 documents that were handled on a non-secure server by people without security clearances. Completely different in scale and exposure to damage.

FBI agents who investigated Petraeus were LIVID that he got off so easy. It wasnt just pillow talk.

[AUUSN 823]

I'm hoping Clinton wins just so I can see this board meltdown to apocalyptic levels.

So you're for the most corrupt person ever, I see. So much for any oath to serve & protect the country.

I'm for no one. They all suck.

[AUUSN 823]

I'm hoping Clinton wins just so I can see this board meltdown to apocalyptic levels.

That tells me a lot about how important you think this is.....unfortunately.

I think it's hilarious. Want to buy some gold and survival seeds? Poor rubes.

AUUSN, I get that you hold more liberal views on things...but do you seriously see this as some non-issue that's little more than potential comic fodder for you?

I mean, this would be a serious breach of security protocol for just some contractor scrub with a secret clearance. For someone in her position with the clearance levels she has and the issues the go across her emails, it's inexcusable that she'd think this was ok to do in the first place. Talk about a lack of judgment.

Titan on a pragmatic level, I completly get it but in my world, I know senior officials play loose with classified material all the time. All the time. So yes, I find this all very comical because I didnt see this level of outrage when Petraeus (a General I greatly respect) mishandled classified material.

I have some experience with how classified and FOUO information is to be handled. And I can tell you that most people, had it been found they pulled some stunt like this, would be at the very least finding a new job and at worst waiting to be sentenced to some jail time. Not to mention, even if she technically broke no laws, it's a terrible breach of OPSEC. I'm talking extraordinary levels of either ignorance or hubris.

And while Petraeus initially denied wrongdoing, he eventually apologized, resigned his office and paid a $100,000 fine. And he wasn't running for President either. So that's another reason why you're not hearing the same levels of outrage. This woman wants to be given the most powerful position in the country if not the world and she's out there still making excuses, wiping servers then making wisecracks over it. Even you should be able to discern the difference in these two situations.

I do see the differences. I've investigated people accused of security breaches and I know they are held to a different standard than Senior officials. That's just the way it is.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I'm hoping Clinton wins just so I can see this board meltdown to apocalyptic levels.

That tells me a lot about how important you think this is.....unfortunately.

I think it's hilarious. Want to buy some gold and survival seeds? Poor rubes.

I don't need no stikin' seeds....I'll just come take yours. LOL

I don't see the comedy of a Clinton or a Bush in the White House. Sorry.......

Then you're not trying. It hasn't been that long ago. You don't appreciate a comic tragedy?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

http://www.dailymail...il-account.html

Reporter: "Mrs Clinton, did you wipe your server?"

HRC: 'What, like with a cloth or something?'

The race for the Republican Nomination is a clown car.

The race for the Democratic Nomination is a short bus.

I would not put Hillary on the short bus. She is actually pretty smart. That is why she is dangerous.

[DKW 86 7,410]

Petraeus was busted. It was pillow talk and involved noforn on just his pc. I do not honestly recall the amount of documents. HRC is around 300 documents that were handled on a non-secure server by people without security clearances. Completely different in scale and exposure to damage.

FBI agents who investigated Petraeus were LIVID that he got off so easy. It wasnt just pillow talk.

Oh i know they were livid about Petraeus. How do you think they will be about HRC?

[TitanTiger 20,469]

I'm hoping Clinton wins just so I can see this board meltdown to apocalyptic levels.

That tells me a lot about how important you think this is.....unfortunately.

I think it's hilarious. Want to buy some gold and survival seeds? Poor rubes.

AUUSN, I get that you hold more liberal views on things...but do you seriously see this as some non-issue that's little more than potential comic fodder for you?

I mean, this would be a serious breach of security protocol for just some contractor scrub with a secret clearance. For someone in her position with the clearance levels she has and the issues the go across her emails, it's inexcusable that she'd think this was ok to do in the first place. Talk about a lack of judgment.

Titan on a pragmatic level, I completly get it but in my world, I know senior officials play loose with classified material all the time. All the time. So yes, I find this all very comical because I didnt see this level of outrage when Petraeus (a General I greatly respect) mishandled classified material.

I have some experience with how classified and FOUO information is to be handled. And I can tell you that most people, had it been found they pulled some stunt like this, would be at the very least finding a new job and at worst waiting to be sentenced to some jail time. Not to mention, even if she technically broke no laws, it's a terrible breach of OPSEC. I'm talking extraordinary levels of either ignorance or hubris.

And while Petraeus initially denied wrongdoing, he eventually apologized, resigned his office and paid a $100,000 fine. And he wasn't running for President either. So that's another reason why you're not hearing the same levels of outrage. This woman wants to be given the most powerful position in the country if not the world and she's out there still making excuses, wiping servers then making wisecracks over it. Even you should be able to discern the difference in these two situations.

I do see the differences. I've investigated people accused of security breaches and I know they are held to a different standard than Senior officials. That's just the way it is.

But certainly you should understand why it bothers people in a person running for the highest office in the land?

[TitanTiger 20,469]

I would not put Hillary on the short bus. She is actually pretty smart. That is why she is dangerous.

Exactly. Which is why it pisses me off to see her doing this "wipe it - like with a cloth or something" wiseass ignorance routine.

[DKW 86 7,410]

http://www.dailymail...il-account.html

Reporter: "Mrs Clinton, did you wipe your server?"

HRC: 'What, like with a cloth or something?'

The race for the Republican Nomination is a clown car.

The race for the Democratic Nomination is a short bus.

I would not put Hillary on the short bus. She is actually pretty smart. That is why she is dangerous.

http://www.dailymail...il-account.html

I would not put Hillary on the short bus. She is actually pretty smart. That is why she is dangerous.

Not sure how to reply:

1) Either she is very very dumb about how technology works...

2) or she is unbelievably flippant about the realities in dealing with noforn and up.

[aujeff11 6,243]

I'm hoping Clinton wins just so I can see this board meltdown to apocalyptic levels.

So you're for the most corrupt person ever, I see. So much for any oath to serve & protect the country.

WTF

[WarTim 3,456]

Server, in a broom closet, in a bathroom....yep, the pantsuit is indeed from Arkansas...

[JasonsDad 0]

Speaking of Pants suits from Arkansas. I think maybe those coats she wears are from the Kim Jon IL or Kim Jon Un selection. They have a sort of North Korean look to them.

[channonc 466]

I still feel like I need more information before I make a judgement on this one. I don't like that she had her own server/email, but am withholding judgment about the classified information until I know more.

Feinstein defends Clinton's email practices

[TitanTiger 20,469]

I still feel like I need more information before I make a judgement on this one. I don't like that she had her own server/email, but am withholding judgment about the classified information until I know more.

Feinstein defends Clinton's email practices

Two days after an inspector general said it found “top secret” information on Clinton’s unsecured email server, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California accused news reports of “missing key points.” For example: “none of the emails alleged to contain classified information were written by Secretary Clinton,” she said — nor were they marked as “top secret” at the time they were sent.

“The questions are whether she received emails with classified information in them, and if so, whether information in those emails should have been classified in the first place,” Feinstein said. “Those questions have yet to be answered. However, it is clear that Secretary Clinton did not write emails containing classified information.”

This is immaterial. She's the damn SecState. None of her work emails should be shunted off to an unsecured private email server. And the reason is, people sending you information don't know you're doing that. They may send things that are FOUO, SECRET, TS or other sensitive info. I mean, I'm glad she perhaps had the common sense not to compose TS or SECRET emails herself, but come on - the issue has never been "did she write emails."

[AURaptor 1,121]

I'm hoping Clinton wins just so I can see this board meltdown to apocalyptic levels.

So you're for the most corrupt person ever, I see. So much for any oath to serve & protect the country.

WTF

How is this remotely hard for you to follow ? He said he hopes Hillary wins, and I clarified his position by stating the obvious. Screw any oath of enlistment, just to see others get upset as a wretched and corrupt individual like Hillary can take the White House ?

Tells me some don't really care all that much for country after all.

[Strychnine 1,802]

I still feel like I need more information before I make a judgement on this one. I don't like that she had her own server/email, but am withholding judgment about the classified information until I know more.

Feinstein defends Clinton's email practices

Two days after an inspector general said it found “top secret” information on Clinton’s unsecured email server, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California accused news reports of “missing key points.” For example: “none of the emails alleged to contain classified information were written by Secretary Clinton,” she said — nor were they marked as “top secret” at the time they were sent.

“The questions are whether she received emails with classified information in them, and if so, whether information in those emails should have been classified in the first place,” Feinstein said. “Those questions have yet to be answered. However, it is clear that Secretary Clinton did not write emails containing classified information.”

This is immaterial. She's the damn SecState. None of her work emails should be shunted off to an unsecured private email server. And the reason is, people sending you information don't know you're doing that. They may send things that are FOUO, SECRET, TS or other sensitive info. I mean, I'm glad she perhaps had the common sense not to compose TS or SECRET emails herself, but come on - the issue has never been "did she write emails."

Anyone concerned about security should not be sending classified information via standard e-mail services, regardless of whether they are using Clinton's private e-mail server or the State Department's likely MS Exchange (local or hosted) deployment. Neither of those options are secure. They are not considered secure enough to even transmit protected health information, much less classified information. If a message is traversing the internet, it is not secure. That is why truly secure "e-mail" systems never actually send the message anywhere.

I get that there is an intense dislike of Hillary Clinton, and I even share it. However, I think this is less an issue of security and more an issue of politics. If it were an issue of security, the most important question would be: "Why was anyone sending potentially classified information via e-mail, regardless of the source or destination?" That would represent an honest effort to address what are evidently seriously lacking security policies. Instead, the question and focus is: "What is there on Hillary Clinton's e-mail server that we can hang her with?"

[TitanTiger 20,469]

I still feel like I need more information before I make a judgement on this one. I don't like that she had her own server/email, but am withholding judgment about the classified information until I know more.

Feinstein defends Clinton's email practices

Two days after an inspector general said it found “top secret” information on Clinton’s unsecured email server, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California accused news reports of “missing key points.” For example: “none of the emails alleged to contain classified information were written by Secretary Clinton,” she said — nor were they marked as “top secret” at the time they were sent.

“The questions are whether she received emails with classified information in them, and if so, whether information in those emails should have been classified in the first place,” Feinstein said. “Those questions have yet to be answered. However, it is clear that Secretary Clinton did not write emails containing classified information.”

This is immaterial. She's the damn SecState. None of her work emails should be shunted off to an unsecured private email server. And the reason is, people sending you information don't know you're doing that. They may send things that are FOUO, SECRET, TS or other sensitive info. I mean, I'm glad she perhaps had the common sense not to compose TS or SECRET emails herself, but come on - the issue has never been "did she write emails."

Anyone concerned about security should not be sending classified information via standard e-mail services, regardless of whether they are using Clinton's private e-mail server or the State Department's likely MS Exchange (local or hosted) deployment. Neither of those options are secure. They are not considered secure enough to even transmit protected health information, much less classified information. If a message is traversing the internet, it is not secure. That is why truly secure "e-mail" systems never actually send the message anywhere.

I get that there is an intense dislike of Hillary Clinton, and I even share it. However, I think this is less an issue of security and more an issue of politics. If it were an issue of security, the most important question would be: "Why was anyone sending potentially classified information via e-mail, regardless of the source or destination?" That would represent an honest effort to address what are evidently seriously lacking security policies. Instead, the question and focus is: "What is there on Hillary Clinton's e-mail server that we can hang her with?"

I agree that your question is a good one. But "anyone" isn't running for President, she is. And "secure" email systems do transmit over the internet, all the time. But they are supposed to be encrypted and usually are sent (within the military and high levels of government) over a VPN tunnel.

I can't speak for everyone, but I wouldn't have voted for Hillary if she was the best protector of email in the US Government. But this is a really ignorant thing for her to have done. It raises questions of impropriety regarding emails being archived and accessible to FOIA requests for one, and potentially could have exposed sensitive information to people that shouldn't have it.

I cannot fathom how anyone could say this isn't that serious or is just political.

[AUFAN78 3,889]

I still feel like I need more information before I make a judgement on this one. I don't like that she had her own server/email, but am withholding judgment about the classified information until I know more.

Feinstein defends Clinton's email practices

Two days after an inspector general said it found “top secret” information on Clinton’s unsecured email server, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California accused news reports of “missing key points.” For example: “none of the emails alleged to contain classified information were written by Secretary Clinton,” she said — nor were they marked as “top secret” at the time they were sent.

“The questions are whether she received emails with classified information in them, and if so, whether information in those emails should have been classified in the first place,” Feinstein said. “Those questions have yet to be answered. However, it is clear that Secretary Clinton did not write emails containing classified information.”

This is immaterial. She's the damn SecState. None of her work emails should be shunted off to an unsecured private email server. And the reason is, people sending you information don't know you're doing that. They may send things that are FOUO, SECRET, TS or other sensitive info. I mean, I'm glad she perhaps had the common sense not to compose TS or SECRET emails herself, but come on - the issue has never been "did she write emails."

Anyone concerned about security should not be sending classified information via standard e-mail services, regardless of whether they are using Clinton's private e-mail server or the State Department's likely MS Exchange (local or hosted) deployment. Neither of those options are secure. They are not considered secure enough to even transmit protected health information, much less classified information. If a message is traversing the internet, it is not secure. That is why truly secure "e-mail" systems never actually send the message anywhere.

I get that there is an intense dislike of Hillary Clinton, and I even share it. However, I think this is less an issue of security and more an issue of politics. If it were an issue of security, the most important question would be: "Why was anyone sending potentially classified information via e-mail, regardless of the source or destination?" That would represent an honest effort to address what are evidently seriously lacking security policies. Instead, the question and focus is: "What is there on Hillary Clinton's e-mail server that we can hang her with?"

I agree that your question is a good one. But "anyone" isn't running for President, she is. And "secure" email systems do transmit over the internet, all the time. But they are supposed to be encrypted and usually are sent (within the military and high levels of government) over a VPN tunnel.

I can't speak for everyone, but I wouldn't have voted for Hillary if she was the best protector of email in the US Government. But this is a really ignorant thing for her to have done. It raises questions of impropriety regarding emails being archived and accessible to FOIA requests for one, and potentially could have exposed sensitive information to people that shouldn't have it.

I cannot fathom how anyone could say this isn't that serious or is just political.

Oh I can fathom it. You are not giving enough consideration to the low info voter who lacks the intelligence to know better, nor are you considering the leftist wingnuts so entrenched in their political party they simply overlook as a witch hunt.

And BTW, you speak with me. No way in hell I'd vote for the loon. Having stated as much, I said months ago she'd be our next president due to the two aforementioned sectors. I still believe it. Hope I am wrong.

[Strychnine 1,802]

I still feel like I need more information before I make a judgement on this one. I don't like that she had her own server/email, but am withholding judgment about the classified information until I know more.

Feinstein defends Clinton's email practices

Two days after an inspector general said it found “top secret” information on Clinton’s unsecured email server, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California accused news reports of “missing key points.” For example: “none of the emails alleged to contain classified information were written by Secretary Clinton,” she said — nor were they marked as “top secret” at the time they were sent.

“The questions are whether she received emails with classified information in them, and if so, whether information in those emails should have been classified in the first place,” Feinstein said. “Those questions have yet to be answered. However, it is clear that Secretary Clinton did not write emails containing classified information.”

This is immaterial. She's the damn SecState. None of her work emails should be shunted off to an unsecured private email server. And the reason is, people sending you information don't know you're doing that. They may send things that are FOUO, SECRET, TS or other sensitive info. I mean, I'm glad she perhaps had the common sense not to compose TS or SECRET emails herself, but come on - the issue has never been "did she write emails."

Anyone concerned about security should not be sending classified information via standard e-mail services, regardless of whether they are using Clinton's private e-mail server or the State Department's likely MS Exchange (local or hosted) deployment. Neither of those options are secure. They are not considered secure enough to even transmit protected health information, much less classified information. If a message is traversing the internet, it is not secure. That is why truly secure "e-mail" systems never actually send the message anywhere.

I get that there is an intense dislike of Hillary Clinton, and I even share it. However, I think this is less an issue of security and more an issue of politics. If it were an issue of security, the most important question would be: "Why was anyone sending potentially classified information via e-mail, regardless of the source or destination?" That would represent an honest effort to address what are evidently seriously lacking security policies. Instead, the question and focus is: "What is there on Hillary Clinton's e-mail server that we can hang her with?"

I agree that your question is a good one. But "anyone" isn't running for President, she is. And "secure" email systems do transmit over the internet, all the time. But they are supposed to be encrypted and usually are sent (within the military and high levels of government) over a VPN tunnel.

I can't speak for everyone, but I wouldn't have voted for Hillary if she was the best protector of email in the US Government. But this is a really ignorant thing for her to have done. It raises questions of impropriety regarding emails being archived and accessible to FOIA requests for one, and potentially could have exposed sensitive information to people that shouldn't have it.

I cannot fathom how anyone could say this isn't that serious or is just political.

I think you are referring to the usage of SSL on e-mail servers as "secure", where it is not. Truly secure e-mail systems are those where all users login to a system that only handles internal messages, or one that is only accessible via VPN. To explain the difference, my office e-mail server (Zimbra) uses SSL, as do most. If I were to send a message to your Gmail address, the message itself is not encrypted as it traverses the path between my e-mail server and Gmail's servers. However, the path between me and my e-mail server is encrypted, and the path between you and Gmail is as well. That is why my office cannot send your lab results to you via those means. Despite the SSL, it is not considered secure (because it isn't), and you must instead login to our patient portal to retrieve said messages. The primary reason for this is removing the realistic possibility of interception. The ports used for transmitting e-mail (SSL or otherwise) are very well-known, easy to monitor, and they only carry one thing: e-mail traffic. That is also why the military and high levels of government would use VPN tunnels, as you said. There are only two ways to provide end-to-end encrypted e-mail services: a portal service that contains the messages completely internally while only accessible via encrypted and authenticated connections, or the usage of a VPN to accomplish the same task. If an e-mail service can send complete messages to my Gmail, or Hillary Clinton's e-mail server, it is not secure.

Do I think it is ridiculous that Hillary Clinton was using a private server or account for State Department purposes? Absolutely. I also found it ridiculous that Colin Powell did basically the same thing, thus giving her an effective precedent to do it too. The people involved are less important to me than the fact that they were even allowed to do it at all. Apparently there was no official policy forbidding such practices, and that is the most ridiculous part of it to me. That is something I would consider information security 101. When the security policy of Yale University that covers the transmission of protected health information is more stringent than the security policy applied to the Secretary of State (whoever it is) concerning official electronic communication (which may or may not be classified), I find that more disturbing than who did it. My fear is that Hillary Clinton will be effectively lynched by it, or lose the election, and the actual meat of the matter will be largely forgotten. If she is elected, the meat of the matter will definitely be forgotten. My suspicion, based largely on work I have done as a contractor in various agencies, is that this poorly implemented security goes far beyond Hillary Clinton.