Hillary Clinton's emails are a non-scandal: Column

Hillary Clinton's emails are a non-scandal: Column

Seems the author doesn't understand anything about the law and justice system.

The pseudo-scandal over Hillary Clinton’s emails bubbled up again with the recent release of the State Department Inspector General’s report. Notwithstanding the usual hype, a close reading of the 42-page report (plus timely recommendations and appendices) reveals that the State Department system was susceptible to cyberattacks both before and after Secretary Clinton’s tenure. Some experts have suggested that Clinton’s server was as secure, and maybe even more secure, than the department’s system.

-Mod Edit- Please do not create minimal threads. Include your opinion, more than a single sentence on the story you posted, in order to foster a good discussion. An Opening Post is the most crucial part of any thread.

a reply to: Raven95

Seems like the author of the article has not read the guccifer docs or checked them against collaborating data sources to verify the authenticity of them.

a reply to: Raven95

This has been noted before, that her server was as secure or more secure than the one at her workplace. It's probably true.

Have you read the 42 page report or the, probably more than 42 pages of law that are concerned with this?

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Raven95

This has been noted before, that her server was as secure or more secure than the one at her workplace. It's probably true.

Have you read the 42 page report or the, probably more than 42 pages of law that are concerned with this?

Reldra. "It has been noted" .. "It's probably true" ??
Which report Reldra ? Do you have a link?

a reply to: reldra

Now we're just going to make # up?

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Raven95

This has been noted before, that her server was as secure or more secure than the one at her workplace. It's probably true.

Have you read the 42 page report or the, probably more than 42 pages of law that are concerned with this?

Have you?

There is no system in the world that is 100% safe & secure if its connected to the internet. Its a lot easier to probe a network for vulnerabilities than it is to anticipate those same vulnerablities, and thats with a large IT department. We are talking about a homebrew server in a bathroom closet..

a reply to: Raven95

She's a Democrat so anything goes.

a reply to: Raven95

So they claim because the State Department systems were garbage, that Hillary did a good thing by using a private server?

Lol.

The excuses are getting thinner it seems.

Nice thread!

~Tenth

Whether or not the assertion that her private server was more secure is true or otherwise is irrelevant.
Federal law mandates the use of government owned secure systems for communications. As a long standing politician, Clinton would have been well aware of this, as would those she tasked with setting up this private server.

Using a system outside of that mandated infrastructure was a deliberate act. Add that to the "lost" or destroyed backups and it becomes clear this a deliberate move to avoid scrutiny. Therefore, she broke the law, plain and simple.

In the private sector, our own governments mandate data retention by law, and private companies must abide by them under threat of fines or even jail terms for company owners. To see Clinton seemingly able to sidestep laws and get away with it is just another slap in the face for everyone else and those whom that same government threatens with penalties for non-compliance.

But, as we all see time and time again, the laws are meant for everyone else, not them!

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: reldra

Now we're just going to make # up?

That's what Hillary does!

Looks like USA Today took an opportunity to throw a propaganda campaign piece into the wild after the Orlando massacre.

Sneaky Sneaky.

Now what about those emails being withheld completely because of classified material to sensitive to release?



Oh and what about the Inspector General report that cites things Hillary has lied about?

a reply to: reldra

The government has never confirmed any of that have they?

a reply to: reldra

This has been noted before, that her server was as secure or more secure than the one at her workplace. It's probably true.

You might want to go back and re-read the report:

With regard to encryption, Secretary Clinton’s website states that “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.”150

Although this report does not address the safety or security of her system, DS and IRM reported to OIG that Secretary Clinton never demonstrated to them that her private server or mobile device met minimum information security requirements specified by FISMA and the FAM.

Furthermore:

Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs.

An obligation she did not meet.

She was offered secure systems, more than once.

...OIG found no evidence that Secretary Clinton ever contacted IRM to request such a solution...

The Deputy Chief of Staff emailed the Secretary that “we should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam.” In response, the Secretary wrote, “Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

...

In August 2011, the Executive Secretary, the Under Secretary for Management, and Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff, in response to the Secretary’s request, discussed via email providing her with a Department BlackBerry to replace her personal BlackBerry, which was malfunctioning, possibly because “her personal email server is down.” The then-Executive Secretary informed staff of his intent to provide two devices for the Secretary to use: “one with an operating State Department email account (which would mask her identity, but which would also be subject to FOIA requests), and another which would just have phone and internet capability.” In another email exchange, the Director of S/ES-IRM noted that an email account and address had already been set up for the Secretary153 and also stated that “you should be aware that any email would go through the Department’s infrastructure and subject to FOIA searches.”154 However, the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of Staff rejected the proposal to use two devices, stating that it “doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.” OIG found no evidence that the Secretary obtained a Department address or device after this discussion.

She, and her top advisors, 100% own this entire thing:

...officials all stated that they were not asked to approve or otherwise review the use of Secretary Clinton’s server and that they had no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff.

Her system was NOT secure (Guccifer got in and got Bill's doodles, which were kept on the same server, ergo, Guccifer (at least) was in Hillary's email server and it was thus not secure)

Have you read the 42 page report or the, probably more than 42 pages of law that are concerned with this?

Yes, I've read the entire 83 page report, several times. Along with tons of law regarding the handling and retention of classified information, which is why I am able to understand that with the information public available, Hillary violated counterespionage law by gross negligence if not outright intentional sedition. I think the only reason treason charges would not be applicable is that we are not under an actual declared state of war.

Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of
Email Records Management and
Cybersecurity Requirements(direct link to .pdf)

Just a note. . . . this only works on those with weak minds.

originally posted by: ratfintc
a reply to: Raven95

Seems like the author of the article has not read the guccifer docs or checked them against collaborating data sources to verify the authenticity of them.

INDEED.

The gritchy one has evidence of her criminality flowing in floods all around the culture.

People choose to look the other way; to deny it; to parrot her "What does it matter;" etc. etc. etc. ad horrific nauseum.

Hillary Denies Once Again: I Never Received or Sent Classified Emails

not a 'smidgen' of a scandal here......move along.......

a reply to: ratfintc

Keep up. Guccifer is a liar and this new .2 version is claiming he hacked the DNC. Of course there's no proof. DNC says two Russian govt hacks took place and they say g2 is disinformation agent.
There is no no authentication. Pluheeze.

a reply to: Sillyolme

LOL

Like the DNC is trustworthy of telling the truth.

Hillary has been caught in dozens of confirmed lies and deflections.

The confirmations come from real sources with proof too !!!

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Yeah homebrew. Nice term. What does it mean? Sounds kind of Jerry rigged. But the guy who set it up is an IT expert for the state dept. Not like he built the system from parts on eBay. What a joke. The guy is a professional and a server is a program. Homebrew. Good little puppets always learn the buzz words. I just laugh and laugh every day.