Hillary supporters-- how do you reconcile these positions?

[Marr]

I've noticed a strong trend among Hillary's most vocal supporters here. They're largely the same people who were the most vocally anti-Snowden.

How can you condemn Snowden for 'putting national interests at risk', while completely excusing Hillary for doing the same? Especially when he did it as a whistleblower, and she did it for personal convenience at best?

[YouDig]

2. Hillary didn't put national interests at risk.

[Marr]

3. But Snowden *did*?

[YouDig]

4. I'm actually undecided on Snowden. Both sides have a point.

He revealed important information, but he also leaked a lot of highly sensitive information, which did put national interests at risk.

Hillary is a totally different situation. She didn't leak anything, she had some retro-actively classified information on her email, same as Colin Powell. It's a Bureaucratic thing, not even the same ballpark.

[MohRokTah]

43. Yep. eom

[Gomez163]

76. He stole classified information and first tried to give them to China and

then ended up giving them to Russia.

[Marr]

81. So why do you excuse Hillary's negligent handling of classified information?

If you're really so interested in keeping classified information classified, why would you accept Hillary's lame 'it was just more convenient for me' excuse in handling it so casually?

[floriduck]

77. You don't really know that for sure. What is in the 22 emails the Feds won't release? And

why is the hacker guy getting special treatment? Too many unanswered questions for a statement like yours. Just sayin'

[CrowCityDem]

5. Snowden intentionally put classified info out in the media. It's completely different.

Frankly, if you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

[Marr]

9. Whereas Hillary just made top secret information available

for her own convenience?

I see a big difference, actually. One is a considered act and a public service, the other-- at best-- a casual disregard for law in favor of personal convenience.

[CrowCityDem]

10. She didn't make anything "available".

[Marr]

14. Would you like to debate the definition of the word 'is' while we're here? /nt

[CrowCityDem]

18. It was on a private server, not open to the public. Same as the State Dept's.

[Marr]

22. It was unsecure. /nt

[CrowCityDem]

23. It's BS to call it "available" when you have to commit a crime to get to it.

[Marr]

30. If your problem with Snowden is that he exposed government secrets, there

is no difference besides motivation.

One is an idealist, the other a negligent bureaucrat who values their own secrecy above that of the government.

[CrowCityDem]

32. There's a difference the size of Bernie's ego between them.

One took an action that left some information less secured than on a government server (although those face hacking attempts every single day). The other deliberately stole classified information and indiscriminately released it to the world.

Yeah, those are TOTALLY the same.

[angrychair]

55. Your splitting hairs

It was outside of government network, a private email server, with a "HillaryClinton.com" email address.

If it was outside of government control, it was, than it was very much available in the context of information security.
As far as government information security requirements and the laws and regulations that govern that, she could have wired her email server directly into the New York Times and there would be little difference.

If we can do what we want and how we want, why have any standards, ethics or laws at all?

[CrowCityDem]

57. Splitting hairs? I'm responding to an accusation that it was the same as LITERALLY handing it over.

Trying to make these comparisons just shows that people have a vendetta against Hillary. You can call it sloppy, stupid, a mistake, any of those is perfectly legitimate. But to try to claim that what she did was the same as someone who knowingly and gleefully put state secrets in the media is a flat out lie of Trump-ian, or maybe Sanders-ian, proportion.

All information is 'available' if you want to include hacking in the definition. Even the government servers aren't immune. But that's a world apart from directly handing it over, and you damn well know that.

[angrychair]

58. No vendetta

I speak from working in and having real world exposure to how it works and the real world implications "mistakes" can have for people that did far less than what she is being accused of doing.

I find the Animal Farm mentality of "some are more equal than others" dismissivness to excuse facing any repercussions from her breaking the laws and regulations regarding the securing and handling of classified materials disturbing.
No matter what the letter is after their name or what their last name happens to be, should make them any less accountable to the laws and rules all government employees are expected to follow.

[CrowCityDem]

60. This wasn't about if it was wrong. It was about a direct comparison to Snowden HANDING secrets over.

[angrychair]

61. That is what it's about

Again, you are splitting hairs. We are parsing words at this point.
Did she, literally, physically, hand over classified material? No.
My point is that conducting government business and mishandling classified material, on a private email server, is, in the eyes of law and those charged with investigating these spillages, only a difference of semantics.

[CrowCityDem]

65. No, this thread of discussion was always about the absurd comparison, not the act itself.

Furthermore, it is not just a matter of semantics. There are always degrees of difference along the same lines. That's why we have labels like murder, manslaughter, and assault that can all cover the same action. The differences are as important as the underlying similarity.

[angrychair]

68. explain those differences to the family of a killed relative

To POC , who, for decades, received harsher prison sentences for crack over whites for powder cocaine of the same weight.

And for those that were and will lose the ability to have a security clearance, get fired and/or jailed for mishandling classified material in much less serious circumstances but watch HRC get treated with kit gloves and have so many excuse what she did.

"Some are more equal than others"

[BlueStateLib]

31. Her setup was just as secure as any state.gov user on the unsecure OpenNet network

Classified information can only be viewed using a classified workstation using the secure ClassNet network

[Bob41213]

49. Really?

Did the state.gov site allow users to connect with no encryption for 3 months while they were traveling in China and abroad (meaning anyone watching could see everything including her password)? Did they leave their VPN/RDC open so anyone with access to google could figure a way in?

[BlueStateLib]

80. Where did this rumor "No Encryption" come from

Hillary used her Blackberry via VPN, she or nobody else used the HTTPS web page to log on so there was no need for her server to have certificate authority issued certificate when a self signed certificates would be just as secure in her application

In order to ensure her e-mails were private, Clinton’s system appeared to use a commercial encryption product from Fortinet -- a good step, McGeorge said.

However, when McGeorge examined the set-up this week he found it used a default encryption “certificate,” instead of one purchased specifically for Clinton’s service. Encryption certificates are like digital security badges, which websites use to signal to incoming browsers that they are legitimate.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-04/clinton-s-e-mail-system-built-for-privacy-though-not-security

* DISPUTED ** The CAPWAP DTLS protocol implementation in Fortinet FortiOS 5.0 Patch 7 build 4457 uses the same certificate and private key across different customers' installations, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof SSL servers by leveraging the Fortinet_Factory certificate and private key. NOTE: FG-IR-15-002 says "The Fortinet_Factory certificate is unique to each device ... An attacker cannot therefore stage a MitM attack."
https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2015-1571

To be fair, the State Department’s track record for its own email security isn’t exactly spotless, even relative to Clinton’s DIY approach. Consider this: Some critics have pointed out in recent days that Clintonemail.com currently uses an invalid TLS certificate, another method that a man-in-the-middle might use to intercept or spoof emails from the server; but Stanford researcher Jonathan Mayer points out to WIRED that the State Department’s own TLS certificate is currently invalid, too. Mayer believes that Clinton’s bad certificate is a result of a misconfiguration that occurred when the email service was transferred in 2013 to the McAfee-owned company MX Logic. The State Department, Mayer says, uses a “self-signed certificate,” a less-than-sterling security practice. “Against man-in-the middle attacks, both are currently insecure,” he says.

In fact, the State Department has been the target of several successful hacker attacks over the past decade. The most recent one in November of 2014 forced the agency to temporarily shut down its email system as a response to concerns that unclassified communications had been breached by Russian hackers
https://www.wired.com/2015/03/clintons-email-server-vulnerable/

[Bob41213]

82. Did you read the article?

First, let's be clear. She went through 2 servers that we know of. This doesn't specify which server we are talking about nor does it mention the timeframe so this doesn't disprove anything. She spent the tenure of her SOS service with Brian Pagliano and then switched to Platte River after her tenure ended. I believe it was Platte River that installed some security software namely an intrusion detection system and other items, but they were by no means a security specialist.

Second, if you read the article it says she bought the certificate but never installed it. *Facepalm* Also if you read the link you mention, it's title "clintons-email-server-vulnerable." That's not exactly what I'd be using as proof that her server is more secure than the State Dept. An expired certificate is far less of a problem than an improperly installed one. So once again, that article doesn't say what you claim it does.

Third, the article mentions a Fortinet SSL certificate, which is different than a firewall but she could have had both--but it never mentions the firewall you mention.

Finally, here's an article that talks about the first 3 months of her service when she didn't have a certificate installed.

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/235493-clinton-email-lacked-encryption-certificate-for-three-months

Hillary Clinton did not encrypt her private email service with a digital certificate for the first three months of her tenure as secretary of State, according to a security research firm

After scanning Clinton’s domain, clintonemail.com, the security firm Venafi found that from January to March 2009, the domain had no digital certificate issued by an authority, which shows a site is secured.

“This means that during the first three months of Secretary Clinton’s term in office, web browser, smartphone and tablet communications would not have been encrypted,” said Kevin Bocek, vice president of security strategy and threat intelligence at Venafi, in a blog post.

According to Clinton’s travel records, she went to China, Egypt, Israel, Japan and South Korea, among other countries, during that time.

[MohRokTah]

45. I know for a FACT it was far more secure than the State Department's servers.

I also know for a FACT that Hillary was unable to ever access any State Department email servers while on the road, which was 95% of the time.

Now are you beginning to get the picture as to why high level state department employees had no other choice but to use outside means for email communications?

[Bob41213]

51. I know both statements are incorrect/inaccurate.

Clinton was unable to access her State Department email servers 100% of the time because she didn't have an account.

Clinton's email server was not more secure. It lacked intrusion detection for years. It lacked encryption for 3 months in the start of her service (people could see her password by sniffing traffic). It left open VPN and RDP ports to the world! It WAS hacked guaranteed. The State Department had a team of security professionals monitoring everything (how did Pagliano monitor things without intrusion detection? Did he login every day and read through the logs?) so they'd actually notice an attack. Hillary did not.

[hrmjustin]

6. The same could be asked of Sanders fans who love Snowden.

[Marr]

11. Not really.

One is a whistleblower trying to expose what he considered unethical policies, the other a senior government official trying to hide information.

[hrmjustin]

15. Not everyone agrees with you assertions.

[840high]

41. yep +10

[firebrand80]

7. I have neither "condemned" Snowden nor "completely excused" Hillary nt

[Marr]

12. Then this isn't about you, is it?

[firebrand80]

21. You directed your post toward "Hillary supporters"

and then proceeded to make assumptions about what all Hillary supporters think

[realmirage]

8. The email "scandal" is panning out to be the

fake GOP attack it always was (what happened to all those breathless posts about an imminent indictment?), New Jersey will make the vote in California irrelevant, so I guess focusing on what Snowden likes or doesn't like is all that's left?

[AgingAmerican]

16. It's the FBI investigation that makes Democrats nervous with her as nominee

[realmirage]

19. That's what you don't realize, no one is nervous

If you read the facts calmly without an agenda it is clear there never will be any indictment. The only ones who don't see that are partisans.

[AgingAmerican]

20. Many, many people are nervous running a candidate under active FBI investigation

As least the smart ones are....

Doesn't have to be an indictment to damage her irreparably.

[realmirage]

25. You mean like all the other GOP attacks on the Clintons

"damaged them irreparably?" Vince Foster? And the litany of other made up scandals? Yet Hillary is about to officially win the primary and then the White House just as none of those fake scandals prevented Bill from winning anything or beating the republicans time and time again? Just because you've decided to adopt the GOP perspective on the Clintons because your guy lost doesn't mean the rest of us don't still see reality clearly.

[pinebox]

47. The FBI investigation is NOT a GOP attack......

[realmirage]

48. Yes it is, Jesus man have you not been reading up on this?

[pinebox]

62. No it is NOT

You are getting the Judicial Watch and the FBI case mixed up.
The FBI falls under the jurisdiction of the Obama administration.
Let's get this straightened out right here, right now. The FBI is NOT Republican, they are the cops. Judicial Watch is a RW organization and that is a civil case against Hillary

[realmirage]

66. Jim Comey, Republican, FBI Chief

This guy got back into government by jumping on the whitewater bandwagon back in the day.

And the FBI just investigates when an accusation is made. They don't indict. That accusation is being driven by conservatives like judicial watch.

I guess you were cool with the whole birther movement as well, since you're cool with this GOP fake scandal.

[frylock]

72. Director James Comey was appointed by President Barack Obama.

Is Obama part of the VRWC too?

[realmirage]

67. I know you're one of those praying for the indictment fairy

and nothing anyone says, no matter how much proof, will ever change your mind so my reply before this one is the last I'll say on the topic. Go read up on it using sources you don't find on JPR or Fox News, and wake up.

[libdem4life]

79. Gawd, you're dense. Then I checked...less than a month. Carry on.

[frylock]

71. Been reading up on it for months.

Why don't you share your knowledge and explain your assertion that this is a GOP-fueled non-scandal?

[AgingAmerican]

13. The essence of cognitive dissonance

Holding conflicting views from oneself. Or having to reconcile the difference between what they believe and what they see.

[Faux pas]

17. Great questions!

[beachbumbob]

24. Need example of what national secret Hillary released?

[qdouble]

26. Which email created a national security risk?

[Aerows]

27. I noticed that gem of horseshittery myself

Cognitive dissonance has gone so through the floor, they need an elevator to reach Hell.

[seabeyond]

28. Lol, well huh, a tough one. Like no where near the same. Geebus.

[xynthee]

29. TRUMP!!! Everything is a right wing smear!

She's 30 trillion votes ahead!
She WILL be the dem nominee!
June 16th can't come soon enough!

That's pretty much all they got.

[frylock]

73. LOL! Look directly below my post.

[barrow-wight]

33. Two more weeks.

[Marr]

38. Wow, that's like... as long as you've been here.

Right...?

[barrow-wight]

40. :)

[barrow-wight]

69. Skinner was quite clear

[jzodda]

34. Its easy actually.

He leaked classified information to the media on purpose. He knew he was committing a crime and decided to make a run for it.

She ran a PRIVATE State Dept server at home and did not disseminate classified information to anybody who did not have clearance to see it.

The difference is pretty stark

[thesquanderer]

35. It has been confirmed that Snowden committed a crime.

The debate is about how much is mitigated by his desire to serve what he believed was a greater good.

OTOH, it has not been confirmed that Hillary committed a crime. If and when it is, your comparison would have more teeth.

[Scuba]

44. Really? In what court was he convicted of this confirmed crime?

[thesquanderer]

53. Sorry, I should restate:

The U.S. government asserts that Snowden committed a crime (i.e. he has been charged with espionage.).

At this point, the U.S. government does not assert that Hillary committed a crime, it has not charged her with anything. If or when the FBI were to suggest that she be indicted, then the two would be equivalent in that respect.

(Though also, I think even Snowden admits that what he did was illegal, doesn't he?)

[Maedhros]

54. She has done the same, or worse, as others who have been prosecuted for crimes.

https://theintercept.com/2015/08/12/hillary-clinton-sanctity-protecting-classified-information/

NSA whistleblower Tom Drake, for instance, faced years in prison, and ultimately had his career destroyed, based on the Obama DOJ’s claims that he “mishandled” classified information (it included information that was not formally classified at the time but was retroactively decreed to be such). Less than two weeks ago, “a Naval reservist was convicted and sentenced for mishandling classified military materials” despite no “evidence he intended to distribute them.” Last year, a Naval officer was convicted of mishandling classified information also in the absence of any intent to distribute it.

In the light of these new Clinton revelations, the very same people who spent years justifying this obsessive assault are now scampering for reasons why a huge exception should be made for the Democratic Party front-runner. Fascinatingly, one of the most vocal defenders of this Obama DOJ record of persecution has been Hillary Clinton herself.

Hillary's own words in regard to Chelsea Manning's conviction are telling:

In December 2011, Chelsea Manning’s court-martial was set to begin. None of the documents at issue in that prosecution was “top secret,” unlike the documents found on Hillary Clinton’s server. Nonetheless, the then-secretary of state convened a press conference to denounce Manning and defend the prosecution. This is what she said:

If his case goes to trial and he is convicted, Manning could face life in prison. The government has said it would not seek the death penalty.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called Manning’s alleged actions damaging and unfortunate in remarks to reporters at the State Department on Thursday.

“I think that in an age where so much information is flying through cyberspace, we all have to be aware of the fact that some information which is sensitive, which does affect the security of individuals and relationships, deserves to be protected and we will continue to take necessary steps to do so,” Clinton said.

Manning was convicted and sentenced to 35 years in prison. At the time, the only thing Hillary Clinton had to say about that was to issue a sermon about how classified information “deserves to be protected and we will continue to take necessary steps to do so” because it “affect[s] the security of individuals and relationships.”

Perhaps Hillary supporters are right in claiming that this is some kind of "witch hunt." However, Hillary herself has sided with the torch-bearing vigilantes in the past:

It goes without saying that the U.S. government wildly overclassifies almost everything it touches, even the most benign information. As former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden said in 2010, “Everything’s secret. I mean, I got an email saying ‘Merry Christmas.’ It carried a top secret NSA classification marking.”

For that reason, almost all of these prosecutions for mishandling classified information have been wildly overzealous, way out of proportion to any harm they caused or could have caused, certainly out of proportion to the actual wrongdoing.

But that’s an argument that Hillary Clinton never uttered in order to object as people’s lives and careers were destroyed and they were hauled off to prison. To the contrary, she more often than not defended it, using rationale that, as it turns out, condemned herself and her own behavior at least as much as those whose persecution she was defending.

[BootinUp]

36. I have been pretty much silent on Snowden. The question is why do you

make the comparison? Secretary Clinton, according to all reports from reputable sources, will not be found to have had intent to release classified material.

[Marr]

37. Who has ever claimed she *intended* to release classified material?

It was unsecure because of her negligence, and because she valued her own secrecy over that of the government.

No one has claimed she was an idealistic whistleblower or a spy, so far as I know.

[BootinUp]

39. What was unsecure? You must not be aware, that there are separate systems

for classified documents and normal State Department email. Additionally, the State.gov system for non-classified info, that she didn't use, has been hacked successdully while reports indicate her server was not.

[Marr]

42. My goodness, you should tell the FBI she did nothing wrong.

They seem to be laboring under a fallacious impression.

Would you like their number?

[BootinUp]

46. Obviously we don't have any details from them. The question remains

why are you making a false comparison based on what we do know?

[TwilightZone]

50. You should ask yourself the reverse question.

It's more relevant, frankly. Snowden did it intentionally, and there is little doubt that national interests were exposed. For many, that's why they support him in the first place.

Clinton not only had no intention of "putting national interests at risk", there is yet no evidence that she even did so, intentional or otherwise. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what was on the server, what it was used for, what her intentions were, what information was accessed by a third party, and what Snowden did, in comparison.

If you have information that seemingly no one else has - proof of Clinton's intent and proof that she put national interests at risk, you should contact the FBI.

[jamese777]

52. Well said

and right on the money.

[ContinentalOp]

56. Two employees work at the same bank.

One is the manager, and she doesn't lock the safe every night because it's inconvenient, and previous managers before her may not have always locked the safe either. As a result, some money may or may not have been stolen from the vault.

The other is a teller, who opens the vault, goes outside and yells "come on in everyone! free money!" The entire contents of the vault are emptied and the teller flees the country with the help of a rival bank.

If you hate banks, the latter guy is a hero and a robin hood figure. But if you hate banks so much then why do you care that the manager took shortcuts that may or may not have hurt the bank?

[Doctor_J]

59. She's a woman!

That's how most of her positions and suspect behavior are reconciled

[Broward]

63. It's party over principle with those posters.

[BootinUp]

70. Principles like fighting the RW, and proud of it. nt

[Broward]

74. You're fighting yourselves?

[BootinUp]

75. What party do YOU represent? lol.

[Blue_Tires]

64. Is this thread directed at me?

Last edited Thu Jun 2, 2016, 05:31 PM - Edit history (2)

There's only like 5-6 DUers who don't worship at Snowflake's altar...

Either way, to answer your question: The fact that Hillary didn't defect to Moscow and turn a blind eye to Russia's sins while continuing to air our dirty laundry seems to be enough... Also, Russia's foreign policy and rhetoric has become much more, shall we say bold since said defection...

So -- Is there anything else, or are we done here, OP?

[MFM008]

78. I dont care about Snowden

let him go
burn him as a witch..... whatever
all of us as democrats need to pull together do beat TRUMP.

[Dem2]

83. Lol, most absurd attempt at a comparison maybe ever

I see many posts taking you to task for comparing deliberate dissemination of secrets to our enemies to the use of a server that she isn't even capable of setting up without help from her IT people.

[Marr]

84. No, you see a lot of weak excuses.

You either care about protecting classified information or you do not.

[Dem2]

85. Lol

That's a ridiculous statement on so many levels.

I know you can't believe that and are just stirring up trouble, it still strikes me that any human would choose to be so deceptive.