Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#176

Post by esseff44 » Sun Oct 30, 2016 9:21 pm

How many years were the Clintons investigated by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr? From 1994 to 2001, Who has been more under a microscope than the Clintons for so many years? Whitewater, Vincent Foster, Travelgate, Filegate, Monica, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... nt_Counsel

This is feeling like dejavu all over again. :brickwallsmall: :brickwallsmall: :brickwallsmall:

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15554
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#177

Post by Reality Check » Sun Oct 30, 2016 9:44 pm

Dan1100 wrote:
Off Topic
Your NAZI IT group is incompetent if it was possible to do that. If it is supposed to be a secured environment, in order to get an IP address you should have to use an authorized device. The server that gives out internet addresses (dhcp server) should check for the device's specially assigned number (MAC address) before allowing you on the network (i.e. giving you an IP address).

Unplugging the cable from you computer and putting it into a personal router shouldn't be able to get you on the internet if the NAZI IT geeks are doing their job. For goodness sakes, Charter Cable is able to keep unauthorized routers off their network, any place that has a NAZI IT department ought to be able to. It isn't that it is technically hard, they are just too lazy to actually keep track of all the computers, printers, routers, etc that are authorized to be on the network.

Tell your NAZI geeks to actually do their jobs and while they are at it set up a guest wireless network.
Off Topic
Chill out. Did I mention it was a guest network and outside the LAN firewall? It is still against the letter of the rules as I read them now, which goes to show unless you know all the details you can make unwarranted assumptions about what actually happened. This topic is rife with that.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Epectitus
Posts: 3669
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#178

Post by Epectitus » Sun Oct 30, 2016 11:23 pm

My $0.02. If I am being redundant with other posts, I apologize for not having read the entire thread.

Context: I have held a TS/SCI clearance as a member of the US Armed Forces with personal custodial responsibility for nuclear weapons. So I have more than a passing familiarity with the real world handling of classified information. And I have also spent much of my career as an IT professional who was involved in implementing email systems at three of the largest corporations in America, giving me some insoght into the general technical competence of senior executives.

1. Between the private server emails voluntarily produced by Secretary Clinton (roughly 30,000) and those subsequently recovered through forensic and other means by the FBI (roughly 14,900), investigators identified a total of 110 that were classified. This is twenty-five one hundredths of one percent of the total emails recovered. This tells us that however "careless" anyone chooses to believe that Secretary Clinton and the State Department might have been, there was rather clearly a concerted effort to keep classified information off the server. Because there can be little doubt that as a general rule, more than 25 one hundredths of one percent of the Secretary of States business is classified.

2. No one has provided (or likely even performed) a comparable audit of the unclassified email systems of other sensitive government departments of the DoD. I would be willing to bet (and this is informed by personal experience) that a "failure rate" of 25 one hundredths of one percent would be typical. These are human systems run by humans. They will contain human mistakes.

3. With perhaps the exception of executives at technology companies like Microsoft, outside of the IT department senior executives simply do not have the technical chops to make decisions regarding systems architecture and infrastructure of the sort Secretary Clinton is being pilloried for. Anybody who imagines for a nanosecond that it was Clinton's idea to host her email on a personal server because she understood for a second what that even meant has probably been vacationing here in Colorado and smoking some of our primo legal bud. There can be little doubt that she took some very, very bad technical advice. And it is likely that the bad advice was generated by what I consider the Secretary's singe least endearing (even if completely understandable) characteristic; a desire for privacy driven by paranoia. There were probably better technical solutions to that problem, but she was still dependent on her geeks for advice, and they failed her more than she failed herself (or us).
"Hell, I would wear a dress and ruby red slippers all year if we can prove this" - Mike Zullo

Hercule Parrot
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 3:58 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#179

Post by Hercule Parrot » Sun Oct 30, 2016 11:57 pm

Epectitus wrote:Anybody who imagines for a nanosecond that it was Clinton's idea to host her email on a personal server because she understood for a second what that even meant has probably been vacationing here in Colorado and smoking some of our primo legal bud. There can be little doubt that she took some very, very bad technical advice. And it is likely that the bad advice was generated by what I consider the Secretary's singe least endearing (even if completely understandable) characteristic; a desire for privacy driven by paranoia. There were probably better technical solutions to that problem, but she was still dependent on her geeks for advice, and they failed her more than she failed herself (or us).
Yes, I think that's a well-made point. Someone told her she could "opt out" - have a private system and stop all those damned journalists and republicans from snooping around. No doubt she was assured it would be really secure and convenient, tailored to her requirements. Much better than trying to use the official system, with all the security restrictions and disclosure duties. And, as you say, HRC inevitably jumped at it. I think I've read somewhere that other advisers expressed concern about propriety, legality, need to get approval etc, but were brushed aside. If so, perhaps that's HRC's big takeaway learning from this - the danger of listening only to the adviser who tells you what you most want to hear.

The other stark failure, I would say, is the senior IT & security people in State Dept. They plainly knew that HRC was doing this, and they knew it was contrary to departmental policy. But they never challenged it, in fact junior staff who expressed concern were told to mind their own business. I think they had a duty to act - either to force the shutdown of the private system, or to negotiate modifications to make it approvable. What they did instead was to look the other way and allow HRC to hang herself. They should be fired.

User avatar
Karen Walker
Posts: 1911
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:31 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#180

Post by Karen Walker » Mon Oct 31, 2016 12:13 am

Copied in full (under spoiler) because it should be read in its entirety without paywall issues.
Eric Holder: James Comey is a good man, but he made a serious mistake

I began my career in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section 40 years ago, investigating cases of official corruption. In the years since, I have seen America’s justice system firsthand from nearly every angle — as a prosecutor, judge, attorney in private practice, and attorney general of the United States. I understand the gravity of the work our Justice Department performs every day to defend the security of our nation, protect the American people, uphold the rule of law and be fair.

That is why I am deeply concerned about FBI Director James B. Comey’s decision to write a vague letter to Congress about emails potentially connected to a matter of public, and political, interest. That decision was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and tradition. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season. That guidance, which reinforced established policy, is still in effect and applies to the entire Justice Department — including the FBI.
► Show Spoiler
I served with Jim Comey and I know him well. This is a very difficult piece for me to write. He is a man of integrity and honor. I respect him. But good men make mistakes. In this instance, he has committed a serious error with potentially severe implications. It is incumbent upon him — or the leadership of the department — to dispel the uncertainty he has created before Election Day. It is up to the director to correct his mistake — not for the sake of a political candidate or campaign but in order to protect our system of justice and best serve the American people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 05551fb9db

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26659
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#181

Post by bob » Mon Oct 31, 2016 12:34 am

Too also: "It is against department policy" is simply something one does not say to a cabinet secretary.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Fortinbras
Posts: 2900
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#182

Post by Fortinbras » Mon Oct 31, 2016 12:51 am

I gather, from the few news reports that have tried to de-sensationalize this latest fuss, that:

(1) None of the "new" emails were sent by HRC
(2) The FBI actually knew about these emails at least a week before the letter to Congress
(3) As an additional search warrant will be required, it is virtually impossible that we will get this investigation finished by Election Day

I am starting to think that Comey came up with this just to cozy up to Republicans.

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#183

Post by esseff44 » Mon Oct 31, 2016 2:52 am

The FBI has obtained the subpoena. If there are in fact hundreds of thousands of e-mails to go through and send off to various agencies to evaluate, it will take months. In the meantime, Comey needs to clean up his mess.

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11952
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#184

Post by Plutodog » Mon Oct 31, 2016 3:17 am

Fortinbras wrote:I gather, from the few news reports that have tried to de-sensationalize this latest fuss, that:

(1) None of the "new" emails were sent by HRC
(2) The FBI actually knew about these emails at least a week before the letter to Congress
(3) As an additional search warrant will be required, it is virtually impossible that we will get this investigation finished by Election Day

I am starting to think that Comey came up with this just to cozy up to Republicans.
To be fair -- these are email from Uma's email account on Wiener's laptop. They could include email from and to Hillary. As any email account would have both to and from email. Which is not to say that there's anything new there of interest to the "closed" investigation. Just saying.
The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

Hercule Parrot
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 3:58 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#185

Post by Hercule Parrot » Mon Oct 31, 2016 3:34 am

bob wrote:Too also: "It is against department policy" is simply something one does not say to a cabinet secretary.
I understand your general point, but I think it's not entirely correct in this context. The background to this sorry saga is that HRC initially wanted to have an NSA-modified secure Blackberry, like Obama. Condaleeza Rice had been waivered to have one, but NSA refused to continue the practice during HRC's term. They said that HRC should instead use the approved secure mobile device (described here http://arstechnica.co.uk/information-te ... ndows-pda/). Very similar to a Blackberry, but not a Blackberry...

So it was certainly possible for senior governmental officials to say "no" to HRC in relation to this, and if the State Dept's head of IT Security was frightened to do it he could easily have asked NSA to come with him and hold his hand.

HRC was no doubt sincerely frustrated by an appearance of unfair treatment, by the requirement to learn a new device which wasn't immediately familiar like a Blackberry. Perhaps also piqued by envy and denied privilege, and vulnerable to making a rash decision. And so she did exactly that, and made her own off-grid arrangements to use a Blackberry the way she wanted to.
http://arstechnica.co.uk/information-te ... lackberry/

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26659
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#186

Post by bob » Mon Oct 31, 2016 1:08 pm

Hercule Parrot wrote:
bob wrote:Too also: "It is against department policy" is simply something one does not say to a cabinet secretary.
I understand your general point, but I think it's not entirely correct in this context.
Unsurprisingly, you have failed to convince me that you do understand my point, in any context.

Your speculation about Clinton's feelings (and other matters) is particularly unconvincing.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#187

Post by esseff44 » Mon Oct 31, 2016 1:26 pm

Did Clinton have a mobile device for classified communication? Her office area was a SCIF, as was an area in both her DC and Chappaqua homes. Obviously, there were arrangements made for communicating classified material and that is what she used. Her private server arrangement was never meant to be used for classified information. The results of the investigation are that it WAS NOT used for communication of classifed information other that the few cases where the information was classified AFTER the investigation started but NOT when it was sent through her devices. There was no evidence that there was an intent to evade using the set up system that were specifically for classified information. That is what Comey said but that is not what the GOP propaganda has said. They continue to conflate the two systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive ... n_Facility

When one looks at the volume of messaging that took place during her tenure, it is as Epicitus noted. Also, it has not been shown that any of the material that was upclassified during the FBI review was of any particular significance or consequential. We do know that some of it consisted of news article being forwarded that concerned military operations. From that perspective, it appears Clinton and her aides were extremely cautious and the very opposite of the picture the GOP partisans have painted and have poisoned the media with.

How many times have we heard about her wanting the convenience of using one device but she lied and committed perjury because the FBI found she had used more that 10 devices! OMG! Perjury! What they do not say if the FBI found she used these devices [b]in succession[/b]. When one malfunctioned, her aides went to the AT&T store and got another one, transferred the data from the old to the new, removed the SIM card, and destroyed the old one. Where's the problem with that? Isn't that what people are supposed to do to keep them from getting into the wrong hands? Were they supposed to preserved every old device just in case the FBI came looking for them years later? Is it imperative to preserve every old device and not just the data that is to be preserved for the record? Yet the GOP propagandists turned the breaking/destroying/hammering of the old devices into a picture of avoiding discovery of hidden communications. How many people actually read the reports for themselves, eh? More than 99% just soak up the propaganda mindlessly as it percolates through the media. Drip, drip, drip. That's when her approval rating started to fall. When she had completed her tenure at State, it was very high, but it was this campaign about Benghazi and the private server that eroded that standing. :brickwallsmall: :brickwallsmall: :brickwallsmall:

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 21054
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#188

Post by RTH10260 » Mon Oct 31, 2016 1:45 pm

Hercule Parrot wrote:
bob wrote:Too also: "It is against department policy" is simply something one does not say to a cabinet secretary.
I understand your general point, but I think it's not entirely correct in this context. The background to this sorry saga is that HRC initially wanted to have an NSA-modified secure Blackberry, like Obama. Condaleeza Rice had been waivered to have one, but NSA refused to continue the practice during HRC's term. They said that HRC should instead use the approved secure mobile device (described here http://arstechnica.co.uk/information-te ... ndows-pda/). Very similar to a Blackberry, but not a Blackberry...

So it was certainly possible for senior governmental officials to say "no" to HRC in relation to this, and if the State Dept's head of IT Security was frightened to do it he could easily have asked NSA to come with him and hold his hand.

HRC was no doubt sincerely frustrated by an appearance of unfair treatment, by the requirement to learn a new device which wasn't immediately familiar like a Blackberry. Perhaps also piqued by envy and denied privilege, and vulnerable to making a rash decision. And so she did exactly that, and made her own off-grid arrangements to use a Blackberry the way she wanted to.
http://arstechnica.co.uk/information-te ... lackberry/
While the generation of the PDAs is now well history, after reading the article mentioned above, as an outsider I would also lay blame to the NSA for not unterstanding their customer, those whose job is to mainly read content, eg that need a fairly large display and likely have a resonable keyboard for answering.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16586
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#189

Post by Suranis » Mon Oct 31, 2016 3:44 pm

Hercule Parrot wrote: Perhaps also piqued by envy and denied privilege, and vulnerable to making a rash decision.
Thanks for playing. Have a nice day. :roll:
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15554
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#190

Post by Reality Check » Mon Oct 31, 2016 3:57 pm

James Carville gave poor Thomas Roberts all he could handle on MSNBC.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... icans.html
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20731
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#191

Post by TollandRCR » Mon Oct 31, 2016 4:32 pm

Comey did not send the letter to the House Republicans only.

Carville has failed to impress me since he had hair. He is not, IMHO, a good representative of the Democratic Party.
“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11952
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#192

Post by Plutodog » Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:05 pm

TollandRCR wrote:Comey did not send the letter to the House Republicans only.

Carville has failed to impress me since he had hair. He is not, IMHO, a good representative of the Democratic Party.
Technically, Comey did. In letter format the letter was addressed to House Republican leadership with cc's (courtesy copies) to the Dem ranking minority members included at the end.
The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

User avatar
Karen Walker
Posts: 1911
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:31 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#193

Post by Karen Walker » Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:07 pm

TollandRCR wrote:Comey did not send the letter to the House Republicans only.

Carville has failed to impress me since he had hair. He is not, IMHO, a good representative of the Democratic Party.
I :lovestruck: the ragin' Cajun but his appearance on MSNBC today wasn't his best work. :(

Also too a sticker for details - KGB was dissolved 25 years ago. :cantlook:

User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#194

Post by BillTheCat » Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:29 pm

Karen Walker wrote:
Also too a sticker for details - KGB was dissolved 25 years ago.
True, but frankly, same diff. FSB is just new letters for Putin's old KGB.
'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 9701
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#195

Post by Chilidog » Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:32 pm

Plutodog wrote:
TollandRCR wrote:Comey did not send the letter to the House Republicans only.

Carville has failed to impress me since he had hair. He is not, IMHO, a good representative of the Democratic Party.
Technically, Comey did. In letter format the letter was addressed to House Republican leadership with cc's (courtesy copies) to the Dem ranking minority members included at the end.
"Courtesy copies?"

:roll: :fingerwag: :nope:

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28210
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#196

Post by Foggy » Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:40 pm

So I skipped over pages 7 and 8, bizzy day here. Did I read that the FBI still doesn't have a warrant?

And if they don't, what's the basis for a court-ordered warrant, I'd like to know.
  • "We have a computer with a lot of emails to and from Mrs. Clinton's assistant, Huma Abedin, your honor."

    "I thought you were investigating her husband, Anthony Weiner. For sexting with a 15 yr. old girl in North Carolina. How do these emails relate to that investigation?"

    "Well, they don't, but they might have some dirt on Mrs. Clinton. We don't know yet if there's anything significant, your honor. But there might be."

    "In other words, you have no evidence that would give me probable cause to issue a warrant, amirite?"

    "But it's HILLARY CLINTON, your honor. We have to save America and make it great again."
What am I missing here?

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11952
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#197

Post by Plutodog » Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:42 pm

Chilidog wrote:
Plutodog wrote:
TollandRCR wrote:Comey did not send the letter to the House Republicans only.

Carville has failed to impress me since he had hair. He is not, IMHO, a good representative of the Democratic Party.
Technically, Comey did. In letter format the letter was addressed to House Republican leadership with cc's (courtesy copies) to the Dem ranking minority members included at the end.
"Courtesy copies?"

:roll: :fingerwag: :nope:
Yep. You're also historically correct...would be "carbon copies" back in the days of carbon copies. But "courtesy copy" was also used.
courtesy copy
English
Noun

courtesy copy ‎(plural courtesy copies) (Abbreviated as: CC or c.c.)

(originally) carbon copy
(Internet) A copy of an email sent to a person other than the main recipient
Foggy, yes the warrant has been issued.
The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

User avatar
Karen Walker
Posts: 1911
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:31 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#198

Post by Karen Walker » Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:48 pm

Foggy wrote:So I skipped over pages 7 and 8, bizzy day here. Did I read that the FBI still doesn't have a warrant?

And if they don't, what's the basis for a court-ordered warrant, I'd like to know.
  • "We have a computer with a lot of emails to and from Mrs. Clinton's assistant, Huma Abedin, your honor."

    "I thought you were investigating her husband, Anthony Weiner. For sexting with a 15 yr. old girl in North Carolina. How do these emails relate to that investigation?"

    "Well, they don't, but they might have some dirt on Mrs. Clinton. We don't know yet if there's anything significant, your honor. But there might be."

    "In other words, you have no evidence that would give me probable cause to issue a warrant, amirite?"

    "But it's HILLARY CLINTON, your honor. We have to save America and make it great again."
What am I missing here?
That's pretty much the evolution see: http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopi ... 28#p837028

but the warrant was likely issued because Huma swore under oath she'd turned over all devices & emails. Ooopsss...

User avatar
listeme
Posts: 5399
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:09 am

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#199

Post by listeme » Mon Oct 31, 2016 6:03 pm

Foggy, you missed some amazing laundromat posts from me!

They have a warrant now.

Um, yeah, I don't know what the rationale is -- do we know that yet?

People out in twitterland are grumpy with Comey. Including some real lefties like Chuck Grassley, so it's all partisan as you know.

Shouldn't you be manning a candy bowl!?
We're used to being told it's our fault that men don't listen to us.

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 21054
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#200

Post by RTH10260 » Mon Oct 31, 2016 6:07 pm

Keith Olbermann working overtime in shreddering Comey:

[bbvideo=560,315][/bbvideo]

Post Reply

Return to “Presidential Election”