Woman with classified info on her basement server decides
to make national security a campaign issue.
...was Secretary of State, first lady, and senator of New York, and the next president of the U.S.A.? Yeah....seriously!
Its also the same woman whu thought invading iraq was a good idea, and spent a few years on walmarts board of directors and was silent as they fought unions and imported more and more crap from China.
Do you have any idea of how shit works?
Blaming Hillary for Iraq is like blaming a rape victim. Bush lied to all of us and most people bought it. And Colin Powell who was coerced to pass on the lied was also a S o S, who used something worse than a private email server. He used Yahoo and aol mail, and it seems he deleted tons of emails.
Response to dchill (Reply #29)
And the first time involved anti-Semitism.
...that she gave Bush support for the Iraq invasion in return for his largesse to NYC after 9/11. That statement of hers undermines her claim that she didn't know / was lied to by Bush et al regarding Iraq.
But not only did she vote for the invasion, she gave a fairly long and full-throated speech in support of the invasion. That is why I hold her more responsible than some others who voted for it -- but I do hold all of them, every last single one, partially responsible. Especially the Democrats who voted for it. SHAME on all of them.
There was at least a reasonable argument to be made for invading Afghanistan, although Bush managed to make a cock-up of that anyway. But Iraq, that was a pack of lies, and many in government and out of it knew so at the time.
Hillary wasn't raped when she voted for Bush's IWR out of political expediency.
That's not exactly cause for celebration, although the putridity of her opponent ameliorates the horror of four more years of coproratocracy just a bit. I guess.
How hypocritical can you get?
e.g., MSNBC To the deniers... Watch THIS Video... It is not comforting to think that she may well be the Democratic Nominee...
Hillary really betrayed Andrea Mitchell... The entire context of this report was of a solemn nature... A Funeral so to speak...
Andrea Mitchell "I do not see this report as ...ANYTHING BUT... DEVASTATING!"
Chuck Todd "After this I don't think that she could get confirmed for Attorney General!"
Lots of FIBBING by Hillary here.. for more than a year!
Only people who truly hate her care about her having non-classified information in a not-illegal server that wasn't hacked. Notice that none of them care that Colin Powell had the same kind of non-classified information on an AOL account.
Many of her emails have been classified, some of which had their classification removed, and then later restored.
The official Count n statement about hacking states that the server wasn't hacked, THAT SHE KNOWS OF. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of cyber security.
will be classified by one agency and not by another. Sometimes a document will be classified at the same time that it appears in the press.
But nothing marked classified at the time was on her server. Same as Colin Powell, some emails were later determined to be classified. It's a bureaucratic problem, not a security problem.
As far as the hacking, its looking like the private server kept her info safer than it would have been in a government server. The state department actually did get hacked. Even classified documents got leaked. But nothing from her server.
Calling folks liars on an anonymous medium displays an abundance of pusillanimity and a paucity of courage.
When it was classified is irrelevant since some of it was classified but stripped of its heading and then found to be classified at a later date.
He claims she didn't, yet facts say otherwise.
godhumor who has actually worked with classified data explains it better than I ever could.
It begins with Post #34:
The facts certainly aren't clear enough to call someone a liar.
If i said I had the looks of David Beckham and the intelligence of Stephen Hawking I would be lying.
Removed and sent via email. That is not in dispute. What's in dispute I'd who made that decision. The SoS can not make that decision unilaterally.
There is no evidence it was sent but I will be courteous and not call you a liar. This is fairly arcane stuff and it's easy to get lost in the weeds:
If you read the entire blog there is an innocent explanation.
..."didnt amount to an order to violate laws on handling classified material, and said the email was never sent in any case."
If she knows for a fact that the information was not classified, why did she feel compelled to add that it was never sent?
Little things like this are, shall we say, suggestive.
But government rules require senders of classified information to properly mark it. And the inspector general for the intelligence community has said that some of Clintons correspondence contained classified material when it was sent even if it was not labeled.
It was her job to make sound decisions, which she failed to do.
At least one occasion to strip the classified header so that she could send it non-securely.
And please, stop trying to speak for everyone. Some of us do care. And we care a lot! This is a serious problem and it's scary that your blind devotion can't/won't admit it.
and she has the authority to determine that transmitting a message insecurely is more important than waiting for the secure system to come back online.
The cluelessness of people going after her for that is something to behold.
Classified. And the judgement to know unplugging a server for a couple minutes isn't a security fix
If it's not her classified material, she has no authority. And obviously she had no authority over the classified info the OIG reported on because he unequivocally said that was classified, it was classified at the time it was sent, and it's still classified.
...that her non secure server (especially for the first 2+ months she used it) may have been used as a conduit to hack the government servers?
You do not know that "nothing marked classified at the time was on her server", that is just what she and her team claim.
The fact that she now appears unwilling to talk to the FBI is telling, to say the least.
...whereas an improperly secured server that communicated on a daily basis with people using government DOS servers might be an avenue of attack for a hacker.
Of course I don't know, but if people with zero apparent knowledge about computer security will insist on claiming that government servers are less secure than Clinton's server, I will counter with my own hypotheticals, TYVM.
It would not be necessary for a Government server.
If it came to your private server, you would know.
So, yes, a private server could be more secure.
...that her server was more secure from government oversight?
I guess that may be true. But that, of course, says nothing about the kind of security that protects against hackers.
...and his deciding to tape every word he said in the Oval Office.
I'll admit there's an argument for having a snake as President to survive in the vicious snakepit that Washington DC has become, if I thought the snake could do us some little bit of good--say, $12/hr for the peasants--but you've got to be a very, very clever snake, and know how to wipe your server completely. For that incompetence alone, she shouldn't be commander-in-chief of anything dangerous.
And do please notice that I am "one of them" who doesn't give a crap what Colin Powell did. He's not asking for my vote!
I will not vote for a dumb snake. A smart one...???...I could be persuaded.
Syria, Libya, Honduras. Thousands dead as a result of her foreign policy works.
You must be so proud.
Don't worry you'll be ignored or relegated to the dust bin of history.
from winning the nomination at the convention, sadly no.
I wonder if any reporters will have the guts to call her on it? Probably not.
I would imagine that is seen as a big FU to those in the agencies investigating her.
Hillary only does interviews over the phone now so we can't see her tells when she lies.
Leaving entire banks of Government servers wide open so any foreign enemy can access them at will?
With leaders like her, who need fucking foreign enemies?
because we can always retroactively classify the information later.
They'll never expect it
and forget about the stuff that wasn't retroactively classified to the date it was sent.....because of a review that didn't happen when it was supposed to.
Just forget about IG's request to the FBI being based on items that were classified at the time and remained classified when he reviewed them.
Forget the 22 e-mails that were too secret to release a single sentence....because that SURELY had nothing sensitive in it until someone other than HRC looked at it.
'Throughout her career she has displayed instincts
on foreign policy that are more aggressive than
those of President Obama and most Democrats.'
There. Fixed it for you. Kept it in line with how you started the sentence.
when it comes to credibility on National Security.
You really think people are going to give Trump the edge in national security overall? Wow. That is a statement but it says nothing about Clinton.
if not a national security giant.
Look at all the great work she did with Libya....I mean wow. That's some National Security bona fides right there.
she can't help it and he's too stupid to stop talking.
The only difference will be Nukes will be off the table with one of them.
just stamp gender-related words all over every Hill-related discussion.
Y'all have set feminism back to its pre-70s levels.