Other than Hillary, who do you think should be locked up for violating email protocol?

[qdouble]

Every time I tell a Bernie supporter (or secret republican) that I don't give a shit about Hillary's emails, they start ranting about how it's some prison worthy offense. So I ask, what is the precedent? Who has been locked up for doing the same thing that Hillary has done?

[Meteor Man]

1. To the best of my knowledge

No one else has done "the same thing Hillary has done". Ergo, no precedent.

[qdouble]

2. Can you find any other case where it was recommended that an official go to prison for using a

private email or setting up a private email server? Was it clearly understood that what Hillary did would send her to prison if it were ever found out?

[Meteor Man]

3. Ask Brian Pagliano

Maybe he knows.

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2016/06/three-data-points-regarding-clintons.html?m=1

[qdouble]

4. Your link doesn't show that she actually broke the law, but most important, it doesn't state

precedent for an administrator being imprisoned for violating email protocol. We know for a fact that others have used their own email accounts or servers. How much prison time did they get?

[Meteor Man]

6. We do not "know for a fact"

that others used their personal email accounts like Hillary or that they used private servers like Hillary did. The problem is what we don't know, as opposed to media speculation.

Let's all hope that charges are not filed against a Democratic nominee between now and November.

[qdouble]

8. We do have confirmation that others used it

Like Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State Colin Powell also used a personal email account during his tenure at the State Department, an aide confirmed in a statement.
“He was not aware of any restrictions nor does he recall being made aware of any over the four years he served at State,” the statement says. “He sent emails to his staff generally via their State Department email addresses. These emails should be on the State Department computers. He might have occasionally used personal email addresses, as he did when emailing to family and friends.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-personal-email-secretary-of-state-115707#ixzz4AnBzGGcb
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

I've never seen a single person suggest that we imprison Colin Powell because of this. Nor do I know of anyone who has been jailed for their email use. If it's so clear that Hillary should go to jail, what is this based on?

[Exilednight]

19. did Powell use a private server, or just a private email? There is a BIG difference. I

[qdouble]

20. There is no big difference.

You can create an email server that operates just like gmail or hotmail or whatever locally. What is the difference between the two in practical terms or why is one legally better than the other?

[Exilednight]

21. it depends on where the server is housed and if emails were

Permanently deleted. Yahoo and Google don't delete your emails, even when you trash them. I can permanently wipe my private server.

[qdouble]

23. Are all email providers legally required not to delete your emails? And how does

Yahoo not deleting your emails improve national security? I'm trying to understand the argument of why using a Gmail is better than a person using their own server because that argument hasn't fully been fleshed out.

[Exilednight]

70. legally, email providers are required to keep all emails via

The revised patriot act.

The reason it's different is that those emails can be retrieved with a warrant. That also means that the government can investigate and not worry about destroyed evidence that may have compromised national security.

[puffy socks]

159. your arguing that a thrid party being able to access emails is safer

than a private server?
and she handed the the emails over to the FBI.

[Exilednight]

184. stop putting words in my mouth. nowhere did I say they were safer.

What I did say is they were retrievable since they weren't deleted from their server, unlike Hillary's.

There is absolutely zero proof they were more secure on her server.

If you're incapable of having an intellectually honest debate, then I see no point in either of us contining responding to each other.

[puffy socks]

187. your implying that a server is bad only because the user can delete emails

and I never said you did say that...I'm pointing it out because all you care about is what Clinton is doing and not what an actual enemy of the US might do . How is sending it through a third party better or more safe from prying evil eyes? and why is that suddenly not important or less important than


"There is absolutely zero proof they were more secure on her server."

If they are not putting classified emails into the hands of large corporations by having a private server, it is more secure.

Or are you saying we can trust Google and Yahoo execs and God knows who else with classified info at their finger tips ?


"if you're incapable of having an intellectually honest debate, then I see no point in either of us contining responding to each other."

Obviously its not me who has the problem with debating honestly.... and this line is a typical tactic to run and hide because you know your argument sucks wet dog fur.

[Exilednight]

196. Again, I am implying nothing. I am staying facts. We do not

Know what, or if any, damage was done since Hillary deleted the emails. At least the ones that Powell and Rice sent were saved so as to determine what, if any, damage was done.

By wiping her server, she also erased any evidence of her server being hacked.

You may think my argument "sucks wet dog fur", but I can defend my argument, which is more than I can say for you since you resort to personal attacks.

I'm not saying the server was bad, but using it shows poor judgement on her part. If she was actually as smart as some on here would have us believe she would have found a way to partition the driver and keep her SoS emails separate and regularly audited by a governmental third party.

[puffy socks]

205. what personal attck?

you mean like this??

"If you're incapable of having an intellectually honest debate, then I see no point in either of us contining responding to each other."

Your argument is worthless, in the face of the question of national security, and yes , you implied that it was more secure to allow corporation to hold that information in the event the FBI needed to retrieve it and didnt give any thought to the fact that that in and of itself is a stupid idea....giving it to a third party like a corporation, is dangerous to national security....poof goes your argument.
Its safer to have a private server. and it wasn't hacked by Guccifer either, he has provided no proof, but does have a reputation for liking the attention... so there's that as well.

"I'm not saying the server was bad, but using it shows poor judgement on her part."

No it doesn't:
1 because the current policies weren't in place until after she left.
2 because of the reasons I gave above
3 because te state department is hacked all the time as are other government servers
so how is it again that they are safer?

"By wiping her server, she also erased any evidence of her server being hacked"

Oh baloney. You're making that up. Shed have been arrested for covering up a hacking and she hasn't been.

Security Logs of Hillary Clinton’s Email Server Are Said to Show No Evidence of Hacking

The security logs bolster Mrs. Clinton’s assertion that her use of a personal email account to conduct State Department business while she was the secretary of state did not put American secrets into the hands of hackers or foreign governments.

The former aide, Bryan Pagliano, began cooperating with federal agents last fall, according to interviews with a federal law enforcement official and others close to the case. Mr. Pagliano described how he set up the server in Mrs. Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, N.Y., and according to two of the people, he provided agents the security logs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/security-logs-of-hillary-clintons-email-server-are-said-to-show-no-evidence-of-hacking.html?_r=0

[MariaThinks]

98. So? there was a protocal to print emails which they did. Sent emails are saved on the recipient

systems.

[Exilednight]

102. we don't really know if all emails were printed, we can only take Hillary's

Word on it.

If emails are saved on receipt, why can't find all the emails she said were personal and deleted. How do we know someone didn't use an approved email account to send classified information and it's now buried on some Yahoo. MSN, or Google server?

[2cannan]

144. Her attorney and staff didn't print them until long after she left the State Dept. and after they

had officially requested them from her. If she didn't use a govt email address which would have captured electronic copies of her emails then she should have been printing and filing her emails from the beginning. I can imagine how tedious that would be so why didn't she use a govt email address for her work and a personal one for her personal business? Doing this would not address the issues with classified information being sent but it would have solved the need to follow record keeping requirements and also her desire for privacy. But she chose not to do it.

Around February 1, 2013: Clinton fails to turn over her work emails as she leaves office, despite a legal requirement to do so. When Clinton ends her tenure as secretary of state, she is required by law to turn over all of her work-related documents to the State Department, including emails, but she fails to do so. A May 2016 State Department inspector general's report will conclude, "Secretary Clinton should have preserved any federal records she created and received on her personal account... At a minimum, [she] should have surrendered all emails dealing with department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act." The report will note that at least she turned over 30,000 emails in December 2014, 21 months later. However, the report will also conclude that the emails she gave then are "incomplete," because many of her work-related emails have since been discovered through other means, such as being found in other email inboxes. For instance, although her tenure began on January 21, 2009, and she started using her email account by January 28, no emails received prior to March 17, 2009, were turned over, nor were any emails sent prior to April 12, 2009. (US Department of State, 5/25/2016)

Source: The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline ©2016 #ClintonEmailTimeline
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Short_Version_-_Part_1

August 2014: Senior State Department officials hold face-to-face negotiations with Clinton's lawyers and advisers to gain access to all of her emails, but without results. In July 2014, the State Department contacted Clinton's staff and requested copies of all her work-related emails from her time as secretary of state. In this month, those efforts intensify with the face-to-face negotiations. However, the emails still are not handed over, so the State Department will formally request them in late October. (The Washington Post, 3/27/2016) (The New York Times, 3/5/2015)

Source: The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline ©2016 #ClintonEmailTimeline
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Medium_Version_-_Part_2

October 28, 2014: The State Department formally asks Clinton to turn over her emails from her time as secretary of state. Starting in July 2014, State Department officials privately reached out to Clinton's lawyers and advisers to gain access to her work-related emails on her private server. Face-to-face meetings on the issue followed in August. But with the emails still not appearing, on October 28, 2014, the department formally asks Clinton for the emails. (The Washington Post, 3/27/2016)

Source: The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline ©2016 #ClintonEmailTimeline
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Medium_Version_-_Part_3

December 5, 2014: 50,000 pages of printed emails from Clinton's personal account are delivered to the State Department by Clinton's staff. They contain 30,490 emails that Clinton deems to be work-related. But she will later reveal that she deleted another 31,830 emails that were personal and private. It is not known exactly when the emails were deleted. Apparently, only paper copies of the emails are handed over. (The Washington Post, 3/10/2015)

Source: The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline ©2016 #ClintonEmailTimeline
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Medium_Version_-_Part_3

[ljm2002]

45. You are exhibiting real ignorance of this topic...

...if you think her private server had anything near the same security protections of e.g. gmail.

Get back to us when you can provide a link showing that gmail turned their server off for a few minutes to thwart hacking attempts.

You appear to be even more ignorant on this topic than your candidate pretends to be.

[qdouble]

48. I'm a programmer... Gmail doesn't use any top-secret advanced algorithms to authenticate

their communications that can't be done by other professionals. In fact, if it's your own server, you can add more authentication levels than Gmail has and whitelist only certain IPs. Code is code, there is nothing inherently more secure about using a gmail account over having your own private email server.

[ljm2002]

105. Again with the "inherent" weasel wording...

...sure, in theory anyone could program / administer a secure system. In reality, though, it is a very tricky proposition to create a secure server system with direct access to the Internet.

You have no way of knowing whether Gmail uses algorithms that only they are aware of, or not. Certainly Google has the resources to hire the best and the brightest and they have a shitload of software patents. So that argument is a non-starter.

Google also has the resources to place their servers inside a protected zone, never directly interacting with the Internet. Whereas Hillary's server was right out there on the Internet, with its remote desktop port open for business. Sorry, that is beyond bad practice -- it's practically criminal in itself, given the sensitive nature of the information contained on the server.

"In theory, theory and reality are the same; in reality, they are different."

[qdouble]

111. You understand there's a big difference in the degree of difficulty in what it takes

to build and secure an application like Gmail and what it takes to build and secure an application that only concerns itself with one email account right? Beyond that, there are trade offs when it comes to security... if it's a personal server, you can do multiple layers that gmail wouldn't add simply because it may be processor intensive, tedious or slow.

Millions of commercial email accounts are hacked every year. Stop acting like using a personal is more dangerous then using a Gmail account, it's simply not true if you know anything about creating such a program.

[MariaThinks]

146. but you're an expert, and the non experts think they know more than you.

email
benghazi

[Exilednight]

88. Get back to me when you can probe 100% that

1. Hillary's server wasn't hacked. She's stated that there's a caveat to her claim. She states that her server wasn't hacked THAT SHE KNOWS OF.

2. That she didn't delete state department e-mails.

[ljm2002]

106. Did you mean to reply to me?

I think we are on the same side of this issue.

[MariaThinks]

99. despite all the security, there are still breeches. It's ignorant to believe gmail is secure.

and regardless where is the crime in that?

[qdouble]

107. Millions of commercial email accounts get hacked every year yet these guys are acting like not using

gmail or yahoo is suicidal. It's a witch hunt, not an IT debate.

[MariaThinks]

147. agreed. It's a witch hunt. I thought we were better on the left, but these past 3 months have shown

me that I was wrong in my smugness in judging the right

[ljm2002]

109. Of course that is true...

...I mean, even in spite of our vaunted intelligence and military capabilities, 9/11 still happened. So I guess it's just pointless to keep monitoring potential terrorist activity -- I mean, shit happens, amirite?

As for "where is the crime in that", it is not for me to say. But from what I know of this issue, it seems there might be some gross negligence in the handling of sensitive and classified information. In my opinion it goes beyond that, since negligence would imply she was not actively involved in the setup; whereas she clearly was involved, and while we cannot know her inner thoughts on the matter, we can look at her actions and draw inferences. We already know that her aides told State's IT people who were concerned about it, to never talk about her private server again. That does not argue for ignorance, it argues for her trying to protect herself in some way. From what? From State's IT department -- her own employees. But she also had a plant in the department, Brian Pagliano, who was it appears less than qualified, and who used the remote desktop capability to manage her server from afar, on State Dept. time, which was also against the rules.

Sorry guys you can try and whitewash this all you want, her actions are not those of either a bumbling fool who "just doesn't understand computers", nor of an innocent person who was just trying to get around red tape.

[MariaThinks]

86. How is that different?

[Exilednight]

97. see post #21

[KULawHawk]

152. If the link already existed...

Then there'd be no discussion. Which is why there's currently multiple FBI INVESTIGATIONS

[MariaThinks]

79. Hillary is different because she's a Clinton. That means everything she does is attacked.

[inchhigh]

81. I think the fact that there is no precedent should be all

the proof you need. It was such a terrible idea that NOBODY was foolish enough to do it before. Doesn't that say something?

[qdouble]

85. There is precedent of people using private emails...

some are saying BUT SHE USED A PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER, but not pointing to exactly why a private server is inherently worse than a 3rd party server.

[inchhigh]

110. Because having a private server gave her total control

over who has access to it. This allowed her to "Hide" emails from anyone she wanted, including her boss, we the people. She was a government employee. She does not have a right to privacy in her work product.

[qdouble]

112. Assuming that the people she is communicating aren't also all using private email servers,

the government would be able to access the accounts of those she is corresponding with or be able to tell if she is hiding something. It's just like Apple argued in the case of the terrorist's iPhone. In any area in which internet communication is involved, the government is able to collect a lot data without ever having to touch the device.

[inchhigh]

119. But if she refuses to turn over her emails

(and she did refuse to turn over over half of them) how would the Government even know which accounts to look for?

Perhaps she emailed me at my personal email and never turned over that email or my reply to the government. How would the government even know to ask my email provider for those records?

[qdouble]

121. They should be able to dig up a lot of information through the internet service provider

and they should also be able to investigate her known contacts and look through their records and see if she erased communications that still exists on the contacts records. I suspect it's why the investigation is taking a long time, as they are looking though the whole electronic paper trail. If it was just a case of looking at her hard drive and giving up, the investigation should have been finished a long time ago.

[leveymg]

127. Both CIA Director Petraeus and Deutch were cited for felony violations of Espionage Act Sec 793.

Petraeus plead down to Sec. 1924, a Misdemeanor, while Deutch was referred for prosecution by the CIA IG, but Attorney General Reno ran out the clock without convening a Grand Jury and Deutch was pardoned on Bill Clinton's last day. Both of them were found to have committed acts of mishandling classified materials. Deutch hooked up CIA laptops to his home internet.

[qdouble]

130. Well neither case is an exact match to the email situation.... I suppose Deutch would be close as

far as it being a home server, but they would need to prove gross negligence in the way it was secured. Either way, there isn't any precedent presented thus far which makes it seem that what Hillary did is deserving of a prison sentence based on what we see so far.

[leveymg]

145. The Deutch case is direct precedent. The CIA IG recommended prosecution and specified 18 USC 793(f)

as a chargeable offense for Deutch.

The Intelligence Community IG will be issuing a report on HRCs case before the FBI, and it appears that it too will recommend prosecution.

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and_oig_regarding_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf.

July 24, 2015
Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the
Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails
Yesterday the Office ofthe Inspector General ofthe Intelligence Community (IC IG} sent a
congressional notification to intelligence oversight committees updating them of the IC IG
support to the State Department IG (attached).

The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of
40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which
have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings
and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State
Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated
and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This
classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

A lot of people seem to have missed that one, and it will be devastating to several key HRC Campaign lies.

Here's what the 1997 Deutch CIA IG Report found: https://fas.org/irp/cia/product/ig_deutch.html

WHAT LAWS, REGULATIONS, AGREEMENTS, AND POLICIES HAVE POTENTIAL APPLICATION?

109. (U) Title 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 793, "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifies in paragraph (f):

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing,... or information, relating to national defense ... through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

110. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 798, "Disclosure of classified information" specifies in part:

Whoever, knowingly and willfully ... uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States ... any classified information ... obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

111. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 1924, "Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material" specifies:

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

112. (U) The National Security Act of 1947, CIA Act of 1949, and Executive Order (E.O.) 12333 establish the legal duty and responsibility of the DCI, as head of the United States intelligence community and primary advisor to the President and the National Security Council on national foreign intelligence, to protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.

113. (U) Director of Central Intelligence Directive (DCID) 1/ 16, effective July 19, 1988, "Security Policy for Uniform Protection of Intelligence Processed in Automated Information Systems and Networks," reiterates the statutory authority and responsibilities assigned to the DCI for the protection of intelligence sources and methods in Section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947, E.O.s 12333 and 12356, and National Security Decision Directive 145 and cites these authorities as the basis for the security of classified intelligence, communicated or stored in automated information systems and networks.

114. (U) DCID 1/21, effective July 29, 1994, "Physical Security Standards for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) specifies in paragraph 2:

All [Sensitive Compartmented Information] must be stored within accredited SCIFs. Accreditaticn is the formal affirmation that the proposed facility meets physical security standards imposed by the DCI in the physical security standards manual that supplements this directive.

115. (U/ /FOUO) Headquarters Regulation (HR) 10-23, Storage of Classified Information or Materials. Section C (1)specifies:

Individual employees are responsible for securing classified information or material in their possession in designated equipment and areas when not being maintained under immediate personal control in approved work areas.

116. (U/ /FOUO) HR 10-24, "Accountability and Handling of Collateral Classified Material," prescribes the policies, procedures, and responsibilities associated with the accountability and handling of collateral classified material. The section concerning individual employee responsibilities states:

Agency personnel are responsible for ensuring that all classified material is handled in a secure manner and that unauthorized persons are not afforded access to such material.

117. (U/ /FOUO) HR 10-25, "Accountability and Handling of Classified Material Requiring Special Control," sets forth policy, responsibilities, and procedures that govern the transmission, control, and storage of Restricted Data, treaty organization information, cryptographic materials, and Sensitive Compartmented Information. The section states:

Individuals authorized access to special control materials are responsible for observing the security requirements that govern the transmission, control, and storage of said materials. Further, they are responsible for ensuring that only persons having appropriate clearances or access approvals are permitted access to such materials or to the equipment and facilities in which they are stored.

[scscholar]

169. "did not contain classification markings"

Is the important part. She did nothing wrong.

[Voice for Peace]

215. wrong. classified when it was generated, marked or not

and it was her reponsibility to recognize what is classified.
It's been clearly established she was careless, at best.

[Voice for Peace]

212. here is something to look at

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/210-press-releases-2015/1232-statement-from-the-inspectors-general-of-the-intelligence-community-and-the-department-of-state-regarding-the-review-of-former-secretary-clinton-s-emails

According to one poster here there will be another report coming out from the IG of the IC, before the FBI winds it up. Their preliminary statement from last summer is specific, as you can see here. As a matter of fact, gross negligence in handling of classified material is a crime. So is destruction of evidence and lying about it, I believe.

[hobbit709]

5. Who else set up a private server?

[qdouble]

10. For practical purposes, what is the difference between using gmail

and your own personal server?

[hobbit709]

11. If you ask that question, then you know nothing about IT.

[qdouble]

13. I'm a computer programmer. Answer the question.

[Downwinder]

16. For one thing.

With gmail, when law enforcement comes and gets your correspondence you don't know a thing about it.

With a private server you would know.

[qdouble]

17. If the FBI raids your office, it's the same result.

[Downwinder]

30. Think I will avoid your programming.

[qdouble]

31. Can't come up with a strong reason why Gmail is superior to a private server

so accuse me of not understanding technology. Gotcha.

[Downwinder]

32. Who said gmail is superior to a private server?

There are considerations for both.

[qdouble]

34. In terms of secure communication, there is nothing inherently more insecure about using a private

server. Gmail, Yahoo, etc accounts get hacked all the time. I'd wager you could easily make your private email server more secure that GMail by adding more authentication levels and only whitelisting certain IPs. So I'm trying to understand the argument here... the terribleness of using a private server hasn't been explained by those leading the witch hunt.

[Downwinder]

36. You asked for a difference.

I pointed one out.

[qdouble]

37. Another difference is they are housed in different locations.

But of course, I'm asking for a difference that is meaningful. There is nothing inherently more secure about using Gmail/Yahoo over a well built private server. Investigators could still access a private server. I understand what she did may have been against protocol, but so is taking the tags of my pillows. I'm wondering what elevates her actions to a prison worthy offense and I'm not finding it so far.

[Downwinder]

38. I replied to:

"For practical purposes, what is the difference between using gmail and your own personal server?"

Knowing who is accessing your correspondence is a meaningful difference. Most commercial services do not notify you if they have been served with legal documents to access your email and in many cases are prohibited from doing so.

I am sure the legal system will answer your questions about legalities. I do not claim to be qualified to do that.

[randome]

39. So where is Clinton legally required to be prepared for subpoenas?

You do know that the big loophole in this is that the user gets to decide what is personal business and what is public business. She can delete whatever the hell she wants based on that.

So, again, as has been pointed out, there is no meaningful difference.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Downwinder]

42. Do you deny the difference I postulated?

[randome]

43. I don't understand "knowing who is accessing your correspondence".

Since there is no evidence that her server was hacked, it's a pointless conjecture.

She was never under any obligation to be prepared for subpoenas. Her only obligation was to preserve correspondence that related to public business. That's it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Downwinder]

46. That is why I will avoid your programming.

[qdouble]

52. You keep making this statement without showing any breadth of knowledge.

For all practical purposes, other than violating protocol, there is nothing inherently bad about using a private email server.

[Downwinder]

71. You keep tying it to a specific situation.

Did I ever say a private server was better or worse than a commercial service? I make no judgment as to whether a private server or a commercial service is appropriate, that is up to the individual and the authorities.

[Voice for Peace]

217. Apparently that's not accurate. Her signed oaths or agreements, for one, are suspect.

She vowed to not even have a remote APPEARANCE of any conflict of interest, as Sec. of State. It's a big deal.

There is a not-so-sweet scent of conflict-of-interest emanating from the mysteriously cloud-stored & FBI-recovered 30k "personal" emails.

I've read that communications while in office of such a government official do NOT belong to him or her, and must be archived + subject to FOIA. In other words all UR emails R belong to US

[qdouble]

116. Email communication is a two way street. Investigators should be able to draw evidence from those

she was in correspondence with. Which they may be right now.

[2cannan]

61. I know it won't matter to you but...at least if she had used a Google, Yahoo or MS email account

there would have been more security. This is something the lead technologist for the ACLU said about her use of the private server.

March 4, 2015: Clinton's use of a private server left her emails vulnerable to foreign intelligence agencies. Chris Soghoian, the lead technologist for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), comments on the security of Clinton's private email server: "Although the American people didn't know about this, it's almost certain that foreign intelligence agencies did, just as the NSA knows which Indian and Spanish officials use Gmail and Yahoo accounts. ... She's not the first official to use private email and not the last. But there are serious security issues associated with these kinds of services... When you build your house outside the security fence, you're on your own, and that's what seems to have happened here." Soghoian notes the most serious problem is that it would require a whole team of computer experts to keep Clinton's server protected, and there's no evidence a team like that ever existed. Even if Clinton had used a popular email service such as those by Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft, she would have benefitted from their security teams. But while the Secret Service would have protected against break-ins into Clinton's house, they wouldn't have been able to help with computer security. (Wired, 3/4/2015)

http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Long_Version_-_Part_4

[randome]

73. A distinction without a difference since there is no evidence her server was hacked.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[qdouble]

80. That statement is not a fact. @2cannan

If the code is secure and going through the proper protocols, why would it take an entire staff to keep one email account secure? She's not running an enterprise app, she's using one email account.

[highprincipleswork]

129. Did you read that the server was open, without password, for days?

[qdouble]

131. Would that be the fault of Clinton or the fault of her IT person?

[highprincipleswork]

133. Do you believe in management or laissez-faire incompetence? Check out this video.

Certain you'll love it and see the humor in it.

[qdouble]

136. A 60+ year old woman who is not an IT expert?

Heaven forbid. I can't sit through a whole youtube video of a guy who thinks the entire primary process is rigged and is calling Clinton guilty without a trial.

[Kentonio]

163. Nice to see Team Hillary getting ready to throw Pagliano under the bus.

Obviously it's never the fault of the person giving the orders, just the poor schmuck who ends up carrying the can.

[qdouble]

168. Yes, because it would make sense for Hillary to specify that her server not be password protected

because.... [fill in the blanks while I play nefarious music in the background]

[Kentonio]

171. The responsibility for setting up a server was hers. Her decision and no-one else's.

Therefore the responsibility for the security of that server is once again hers. If she hired someone incompetent to provide that security, then that is her fault. She was Secretary of State for christs sake.

[Voice for Peace]

216. this isn't the point -- it's that her server was inaccessible to anyone but her people, many of whom

never had the clearance for what they were handling. This whole operation was hidden, and anyone who raised a question -- whether re hacking security or State Dept records preservation -- was basically told to shush & that it was all good.

But the State Dept. says she would never have been given permission for this, had she asked; and they never asked.

You might want to do some research into this instead of speculating based on incomplete info. As hard as it is (for me) to imagine, because of her name and fame -- because there IS precedent, I think FBI will recommend indictment, and it may require the appointment of a separate independent prosecutor. Declining to indict, if recommended by FBI, will raise a shitstorm, and there will be endless more investigations until enough are satisfied that fair is fair, justice the same for all.

[ljm2002]

47. Not the same at all...

...especially after your server has been wiped. Like, with a cloth.

Unless, of course, someone uploaded your backups to the cloud. Then, indeed, the FBI can -- and apparently did -- recover the deleted emails.

IF you are a programmer -- emphasis on IF -- then you are either more ignorant than most, or they ain't teaching the young 'uns very well these days.

[qdouble]

55. It's the same because if they raid your office, I'd assume you wouldn't have the chance to wipe all

the data. Even still, if you were under investigation, I'm sure they would be able to intercept your communication, unless of course you are just communicating with yourself. You are claiming that I'm ignorant without displaying any knowledge of anything that I'm unaware of. There's nothing inherently foolish about using a private email server other than violating protocol.

[ljm2002]

66. Please explain, if you can...

...why Hillary's aides tried to hide the fact that she was maintaining her own private server.

[qdouble]

87. You tell me? It's speculative either way.

[ljm2002]

101. It is not speculative that she tried to hide it...

...therefore, it is relevant to your original question, which was not purely technical but asked why she should go to prison?

As I mentioned, I have never stated she should go to prison. I don't know whether she should or not, although I do believe that her handling of sensitive information in a cavalier way should result in something more than a slap on the wrist. But her actions, her avoidance of FOIA requests, her failure to turn over emails until 2 years after she left State (and after she deleted half of them) -- none of this points to an innocent explanation for her actions.

[qdouble]

115. You asked me to explain why her assistants tried to hide it.... how is that not speculative?

You still haven't demonstrated how using Gmail is a lot better than using a private email server from a security perspective. Tons of gmail servers get hacked and tons of private server's don't. You can only deduce that her actions are worse than the others by speculating that she had more malevolent intent than the others, while not proving it.

[ljm2002]

138. Sorry, you are simply deflecting now...

...as if other SOS's used private email accounts for ALL of their State business, which is manifestly not the case; as if other SOS's set up their own private email servers that were directly connected to the Internet, with a remote desktop port open, which is manifestly not the case; really, your arguments have reached the level of absurdity.

Good try, no cigar, TTFN.

[qdouble]

141. I'm not deflecting, I'm pointing out that you are speculating about their motives and then

asking me to speculate with you. I will not. That's not a dodge.

[seabeyond]

18. Zing... Nt

[ljm2002]

49. Wow, gullible much?

"I am a programmer. Answer the question." -- is not a zinger, it is an attempt to pull rank, with absolutely NO evidence that the poster is even being honest about their profession. In fact, if they are a programmer, then they are a programmer who is extremely ignorant of computer security issues. Almost as ignorant as your candidate pretends to be.

"What, like with a cloth?"

Uh, sure, whatever.

[qdouble]

59. You're launching an ad hominem attack on me without displaying that you have any knowledge that I'm

unaware of. Code is code. Whether it's on my computer, the government's computer or Google's. There's nothing at all that makes my code inherently more or less secure than Google's.

[ljm2002]

69. Wow, ignorant AND arrogant...

...what a combo.

"There's nothing at all that makes my code inherently more or less secure than Google's."

Other than the fact that Google employs an army of the best and the brightest, that is.

The weasel word here is "inherently". Of course, in theory, your code or mine is as good as anyone else's. But we are not talking about your code or mine, are we? We know that the server was a fucking WINDOWS server, which really is inherently less secure than Linux or Unix based servers; and we know that it had left open the port that allows remote desktop access, which is inherently VERY insecure. And you have not addressed those points at all.

"In theory, theory and reality are the same; in reality, they are different."

[qdouble]

113. You obviously don't know shit about programming.

If I'm writing an email server using node.js, what difference would it make if I'm using Mac, Windows or Linux? I'll wait.

[ljm2002]

137. Sweetie, if you're writing an email server using node.js...

...have fun with security on any of those systems.

[qdouble]

139. Ah, you couldn't answer the question. I thought so.

You don't know what you are talking about. You obviously don't know how to create an email server nor do you understand how to secure one. As soon as you started talking about how they can "hire geniuses" to work for them, I knew you were talking way out of your league. I'm in programmer groups where I communicate with google developers all the time, they are normal people... not wizards.

[seabeyond]

78. It just is not a big enough deal to inherently create someone as a liar when I have no proof.

And would be ironically funny if he/she was. Not far fetched. I am computer stupid and have had many in the industry on Du help me. Seems a pretty common profession.

Gullible? Maybe. But really, who cares.

[tex-wyo-dem]

90. So what type of "computer programmer" are you exactly?

[qdouble]

93. I know multiple languages, but I'm primarily a web programmer, I've been focusing mostly on

javascript lately.

[Kentonio]

164. What direct experience do you have with server security?

[qdouble]

170. I've run my own private servers, studied some white hat hacking, took IT courses,

write code to understand vulnerabilities, etc. A lot of programming platforms are open source and security issues are understood by the majority of the web programming community. This stuff isn't rocket science, the insinuation that you have to be some advanced expert to build a secure email server is bullshit spewed by people who don't know the first thing about programming.

[Kentonio]

172. There is no such thing as a totally secure server.

And for damn sure you couldn't create one with 'a couple of hundred lines of code' as you appear to have suggested elsewhere in this thread.

You also seem to have conveniently skipped over the part where her server was incredibly insecure, which makes me wonder the relevance of this.

[qdouble]

174. Do you understand exactly how a server can be hacked in the first place?

You have to either get in through the front door by inputing code that server evaluates that is dangerous. Or you have to get in through the backdoor by using a trojan or simply having an unethical person with permissions access the server. If you validate all input and block potentially dangerous code from being evaluated, getting in through the front door is impossible without admin privileges. There's several different techniques that you could employ to make brute force hacking of admin password virtually impossible (meaning that the server will shut down or make login attempts so slow that it would take years to hack into). If you disallow the machine from running executable code that is downloaded and make sure no one gets physical access to the computer to hack it, the server is as secure as it can be.

That's how programming works. There is no mystical way to hack a server that can't be taken care of. The simpler a program is, the easier it is to secure as there are less areas which may unchecked.

The relevance of it is simply saying OMG, she used a PRIVATE SERVER is an attempt to fool the ignorant. There's nothing inherently more insecure about using a private server than having a gmail account.

[Kentonio]

177. Why do you keep repeating your very carefully worded line about 'inherently secure'?

When we already know that her server was extremely insecure?

[qdouble]

179. I'm saying that saying she used a PRIVATE SERVER is a bad argument because it implies that

private servers are insecure, when that is incorrect. If you wish to say she didn't properly secure her server, then that's a better argument to run with... but demonizing private servers as being generally insecure is ignorant.

[GummyBearz]

182. Security is the main thing here..

Wouldn't it be great if a network system existed that was disconnected from the outside internet, and only for government employees? It would be completely secure and would document all activity for posterity. Government employees would be told to use it and we wouldn't even have to bother with these questions about private servers and missing emails... oh, wait a sec... there is such a thing.

"The Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) is "a system of interconnected computer networks used by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of State to transmit classified information"

huh... imagine that

[qdouble]

185. We are distinguishing between private servers

and commercial servers. We have already established that she went against protocol by using her own private emails, but the argument is that it isn't worse than others used gmail/yahoo type accounts that are also connected to the Internet. My contention was that screaming she used a PRIVATE SERVER didn't pose any inherent risk over those who didn't use a private server.

[GummyBearz]

193. Two things

1. "They were just as bad as she was" is a horribly low bar to set for a presidential candidate

2. Since she can completely wipe her server to avoid FOIA requests, it is riskier. Google's server room has a ton of security to keep data safe and backed up. Tightly guarded by both a cyber security team and physically present security guards monitoring it fully for 24 hours a day. I think that is more secure than her private server is, and the backup files are great for those FOIA requests that HRC finds so pesky to her pay for play business

[qdouble]

197. 1. If someone once to vote for president based on their use of email address, then that's on them

but I think it's a very partisan issue. I doubt any Bernie supporter would stop supporting Bernie if they tomorrow a story came out about him using private emails and I'm pretty sure no Trump supporter would give a shit if a similar thing happened with Trump.

2) That's not really a security issue. That's a "is she deleting shit she shouldn't be deleting for some nefarious reason" issue. As I pointed out before, as emails are two way communications that involve multiple accounts and servers and ISPs, there is an electronic paper trail that the FBI can investigate...which I suppose is what they are doing now.

[MariaThinks]

82. very little. Like when bush went after the Dixie Chicks the issue was the freedom of

expression but that they had insulted him out of the country. So when republicans attack the current President while they are in the country its okay. Actually, even when they insult Obama outside the country it's okay too - because - well he's Obama and Bush should not have been insulted.

So there is nothing here with the emails. Just that Bengahzi didn't stick so people had to find something else.

Now they're attacking her anger after Bill's affair.

[randome]

12. So you're saying the rules don't specifically cover that situation. That's fine.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[hobbit709]

14. Some people think legal is OK no matter how unethical, immoral, or stupid.

"Legal" excuses everything that ensues.

[randome]

40. All I'm saying is that this is much ado about nothing.

Which is why, months later, nothing has occurred on this and nothing is likely to occur.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Atman]

57. I HAVE A PRIVATE EMAIL!

It's not top-secret stuff! It doesn't mean secret machines hidden in basements! Colin Powell and Condi Rice had them.

THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE! My 83 year old mother seems to know more about email than half you people!

[Kentonio]

165. Err what? You do know we're talking about a private server, not just email right?

[Atman]

173. Err, urp, duh...yeah, I know what we're talking about.

Explain to me how Hillary Clinton had a different set-up than did Condi Rice or Colin Powell.

[Kentonio]

175. Neither of them operated their emails from a private server.

They both used commercial email which is considerably better protected than the home setup Clinton used which for 3 months was basically unprotected.

They also only used non-governmental email for a small part of their communications. Hillary used it exclusively, meaning state business was carried out all through a system that was incredibly easy to hack into.

[firebrand80]

7. People that "reply to all" for no reason

Should be sent to a Supermax with 23.5 hour a day lockdown.

[wyldwolf]

9. your post borderlines on concern trolling

[Orsino]

15. People advocating imprisonment without trial strike me as dangerous. n/t

[Kentonio]

166. I agree. As do people advocating drone assassinations without trial.

[Hiraeth]

22. her sentencing would be for a Judge to decide after due process of the law. I just want to see it

play out is all. And I wish she had the decency to do it as a private citizen rather than a Public Figure who is running for the Highest Office in The Land.

Fuck the dumb.

I do not recognize this country anymore.

[qdouble]

24. You want to see her sentencing play out? For which crime in particular and what would be a fair

sentence based on precedent?

[Hiraeth]

25. That is NOT what I wrote. Read the senctence s-l-o-w-e-r.

[qdouble]

27. You said her sentencing will be for a judge to decide...

which presupposes she will be sentenced. I read exactly what you wrote.

[tonedevil]

188. Either through...

stupidity(what I'm voting on) or out of malice(I think you have that I just don't think you are smart enough for it to matter) you misquoted Hiraeth. This You said her sentencing will be for a judge to decide is what you wrote, this her sentencing would be for a Judge to decide after due process of the law is what Hiraeth wrote. By changing would to will you change the sentence from discussing what should happen with the due process of law to a declaration that due process has been completed and all that is left is to wait for sentencing. You are arguing with Hireath using the changed meaning which you did. I don't know why you are such a liar, but the lie is there for any and all to see.

[qdouble]

190. Would/will... Both statement presuppose sentencing

Saying she'd be sentenced after due process doesn't change what's implied. If she didn't mean to imply it, she should have added an "if" somewhere in there.

You are the one that should refrain from lying or acting stupid. The Hillary hate is transparent in both of you

[tonedevil]

194. Looks like my vote was correct...

If there is no difference why didn't you actually quote Hiraeth instead of paraphrasing. Will indicates something inevitable would indicates a future event given specific circumstances. Either you are too stupid to understand the difference between the words or you are such a little weasel you think you can lie that blatantly.

[qdouble]

199. I'm not stupid or a weasel, but insulting the opposition is pretty standard fair for Bernouts.

[tonedevil]

200. You either don't know the difference...

between will and would or you are using the weaselly tactic of changing the words and therefore the meaning of what someone else said and arguing against that. I don't know which one it is, but based on your writing here I am still a strong vote for you are not very smart.

[qdouble]

202. If you want to be an asshole, it's fine by me...but don't accuse me of not knowing your intentions

when you slang insults in every single post you make. You can act like you have some class or you can continue being butt hurt about some shit that doesn't involve you. Your dime.

[tonedevil]

207. I quite rightly accused you...

of lying about what Hiraeth said. My intention in that was to stop you from lying or at least make your lies very plain and public. I believe my work here in that regard is done.

PS If you wish to display some of that class you talk about you might consider the implications in the term butt hurt.

[qdouble]

208. All you've done is sling pejoratives while not actually showing that I lied about anything.

If your work was to show that you can act like jackass, job well done indeed.

[tonedevil]

209. You lied about...

what Hiraeth wrote. I said that in my very first post on this thread.

[qdouble]

210. I didn't lie. If you took what she said a different way than I took it, that's not tantamount to

lying. However, if little shit like that gets you riled up, I suppose you have some anger issues.

[tonedevil]

211. Thanks for the free...

psychoanalysis it isn't quite worth what I paid for it, but if it makes you happy you got that going for you. Doesn't change the fact that you changing Hiraeth's words is indeed tantamount to lying.

[qdouble]

213. Whatever bro...

I'll stop replying to you so you can go outside and get some air. I know Bernie's loss is causing severe emotional trauma for some of you and I don't want to be the guy that pushes you over the edge.

Stay strong comrade

[tonedevil]

214. You are cute...

when you have been exposed as a liar. It's been fun.

[Lord Magus]

58. So you want to skip straight to sentencing?

No proof of guilt or even an actual accusation of a crime are required?

[tonedevil]

195. Sentencing...

would only occur after due process. Hope that clears it up for you.

[Yurovsky]

26. Anyone hiding emails from FOIA requests or raising illicit cash...

as a government official.

Nobody has offered a legit reason for the server. "Everybody did it" simply isn't true, and no one but an enabler or someone with kool-aid stained lips would look at her & Bill's interactions with foreign nations and multinational companies who donated hundreds of million to the Clintons via multiple conduits and think "nothing to see here". It stinks to high heaven. Don't try to convince me otherwise, because the evidence is overwhelming and it is shameful that so many choose to ignore it.

It (emailgate & the Clinton money grab) is and was corrupt to the core, and while I expect that from Republicans my standards are just a tiny bit higher for Democrats. my candidate doesn't have to be perfect but he or she shouldn't be totally corrupted by money and power. And IMO that is what disqualifies HRC from public office.

Go ahead and vote for her. But don't tell me that I have to or that I'm somehow supporting Trump if I don't sell out my belief system and vote for the favored candidate of Goldman Sachs.

Let the purge begin. Just be honest enough to put a "progressives not welcome" sign on the door at Party HQ after the coronation.

[qdouble]

28. Your post doesn't address the OP at all. You guys are suggesting that she should go to prison, but

have failed to demonstrate any example of anyone going to prison for using a private emails. You can be outraged by her actions all you want, I've seen people lambast her for her facial expression... but positing a person should go to prison requires a whole different level of evidence and reasoning.

[tonyt53]

29. Bernie's guys that jumped into the DNC records database knowing they should not be there.

[ljm2002]

54. You mean the guy on Bernie's staff...

...who was specifically recommended by the DNC? The one who was fired forthwith when it was discovered what he did? That guy?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. I don't think anyone should be locked up for email offenses.

And, her email incompetence is probably the least of the reasons why I won't vote for Hillary.

[qdouble]

35. I really don't get the incompetence argument either though....

Are government computers inherently more secure than non government computers?

[Kentonio]

167. Yes, computers protected by the security expertise of the NSA are indeed inherently more secure.

[qdouble]

176. This is an argument from authority from a person who doesn't know how code works.

If a server validates incoming requests and doesn't execute harmful code, it is secure....whether it's in my basement or an FBI office. Government computers have shown to have been hacked and to have been running outdated, buggy and insecure software, so your statement is incorrect.

[Kentonio]

178. I didn't say 'government computers' I said NSA protected which the SOS's communications warrant.

As for an argument from authority, that's kind of rich coming from someone who is basing their entire position on their own rather limited web security experience.

Let's just say you're not the only person on the forum who can code.

[qdouble]

180. I'm not saying that I'm a leading authority, I'm backing up my argument with facts and logic.

You're backing up your argument with "Hey, it's the NSA, they are smarter than everyone else when it comes to computers and are the only ones who can make a server secure" type nonsense.

[Kentonio]

181. Not even the NSA can make a server totally secure.

The point is that having a team of extremely experienced security professionals with a vast budget closely monitoring your systems for any sign of attempted intrusion is considerably more safe than setting up a home server and assuming you're fine. New exploits and vulnerabilities come to light all the time, there is absolutely no excuse to think you're ever totally secure.

[qdouble]

183. This is nonsense. The amount of staff

You need to maintain a server is wholly dependent on the complexity of the applications you are running and the amount of vulnerabilities that you potentially expose. A very simple server would require virtually no maintenance.

If I use a very simple email protocol that accepts email and doesn't allow you to attempt more than 3 logins, explain to me how you'd hack it. Cyber security isn't black magic. Point out me the how you hack a simple system that has no back doors.

[Kentonio]

189. You have absolutely no idea what other routes there are into the system

Because something as simple as a vulnerability in the OS can open up other routes that attackers can use to bypass that lovely little simple security system you set up. If it was as simple as you're trying to make out, then the multi billion dollar web security industry would not exist. Internet security changes constantly, and unless you have a really switched on IT security staff looking after your server you'll just end up being one of a long line of people who get breached and then stand their with their mouth open going 'but the system was secure! I set it up myself!'.

Ok rant over.

[qdouble]

192. When you communicate with a simple web server

Last edited Mon Jun 6, 2016, 06:56 PM - Edit history (1)

You're communicating through a port with no access to the underlying OS. There is no mystical way for you to manipulate the OS of a web host unless it exposes it's system files and make them writeable, otherwise every site on the Internet would be getting hacked on a daily basis.

[ljm2002]

41. "violating email protocol"...

...yeah, sure, that's what she did when she set up a PRIVATE SERVER on which to conduct ALL OF HER OFFICIAL STATE DEPARTMENT BUSINESS; and when her aides told State Department employees with concerns to NEVER MENTION HER PRIVATE SERVER AGAIN.

Oh yeah, that was just a l'il ol' "violation of policy". Sure. And if you believe that... you might be a partisan hack.

[qdouble]

44. I see you chose to not address the OP at all... I asked specifically for what precedent for a person

going to prison for what she did.

However, since you want to bring up PRIVATE SERVER, beyond it being against protocol, what is inherently bad about using a private server? A private server isn't inherently less secure than a government server nor does it preclude the ability to be investigated, so what is your argument exactly?

[ljm2002]

64. There are a few issues with using a private server...

...(a) she did not ask for nor receive permission to use it; (b) she was under very clear directives to conduct the bulk of State business on her .gov account; (c) yes, Virginia, there really is more security on government servers, particularly those used for classified information, than on any but the most sophisticated private servers, and hers was anything but sophisticated (Windows? really?; remote desktop enabled? really?; just turn it off for a few minutes to thwart hackers? really?; etc., etc.); (d) her staff told State Dept. IT staff to "never mention her private server again" -- hardly the action of someone who believes they are being forthright and above board; (e) yes it does preclude the ability to be investigated, at least it would have had Hillary's staff been competent enough to wipe it with military grade software, and had they not farmed it out later to external providers who just happened to back up her emails -- OFFICIAL STATE DEPARTMENT EMAILS, SOME CONTAINING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION -- on the cloud; (f) the small organizations that she farmed out her server management to after her stint at State, had NO CLEARANCES WHATSOEVER yet they had FULL ACCESS TO HER EMAILS AND TO FILES ON HER PRIVATE SERVER.

Now should she go to jail? I sure the hell don't know. But she ought to be held accountable -- and her actions do not in any way resemble those of other Secretaries of State, past and present. And her excuses and hand waving on this issue are nothing but dissembling.

[qdouble]

72. A and b don't point to any inherent weakness, only that it was against protocol, we've already

acknowledged that.


(c)Government servers get hacked just like private servers.... "Omg, she was using windows" is not an argument as to why government necessarily has superior code.

(d) goes back to the protocol issue, not an inherent weakness.

(e) as I said, it doesn't preclude the ability to investigate as they can be seized before there's an opportunity to wipe all the data and may still have to ability to intercept communication if doing an active investigation. Also, what if she was using a 3rd party email service other than gmail where she could fully delete the emails, what would be the difference?

(f)I was asking for an inherent flaw of using a private server, this isn't an inherent flaw.

Her actions are the same as other Secretaries of State as far as not using government issued email account. It being on a private server vs hotmail/gmail etc, is mostly inconsequential.

[ljm2002]

96. Again...

...get back to us when you hear about a commercial service that turns off its servers for a few minutes in order to "thwart" (ha. ha. ha.) attackers.

Your original question was, Why should she go to prison? Now I have never said she should go to prison, but just for the sake of argument, let's go back to that framing. Then my answers to (a) and (b) are certainly relevant; she actively chose to disregard warnings and directives of her own department (and she also chose to ignore warnings about the non-secure Blackberry that she used).

As for your response to (c) -- Yes, any server on the Internet gets attacked. That is why big commercial sites use several layers to interface to the Internet -- so-called DMZ's and such -- in order to protect core information. You know, information like you might produce when conducting OFFICIAL STATE DEPARTMENT BUSINESS FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. As for using a Windows server: One of the things they took advantage of in their Windows-based server, was the ability to remotely control the desktop. That is a KNOWN SECURITY TARGET that no self-respecting IT person would do, especially knowing the sensitive nature of the information contained on the server!

As for (d), remember, your initial question was "Why should she go to prison?" If we accept that framing, then her trying to suppress discussion with her own IT staff would point towards culpability of some kind.

(e) You are just thrashing here. Clearly there is a difference in how accessible her emails would be had they been kept primarily on her .gov account as they should have been. Your shifting to the 3rd party server argument is a red herring, since, had she chosen to conduct ALL of her State Department business on a 3rd party server, that would also be very bad and she would still be under investigation. In any case, having ownership of her own server that she kept in her own house, certainly afforded her the ability to wipe information quite effectively, had she or her staff been knowledgeable enough to do so; and of course, had they been willing to do so -- apparently, the organizations where she eventually farmed out management of the server, were unwilling to do that.

(f) Again changing the subject to some theoretical argument of "inherent" flaws. First: you asked originally why she should go to prison; so against that framing, I'd say that allowing unlimited access to the sensitive information on her server, to people with zero clearances, would certainly be relevant to that question.

You seem to be just as much of an amateur in this area as Hillary is. In fact your strengths are similar also: real pros at politics and spin; real amateurs at technical issues.

[qdouble]

104. Commercial servers have redundancies and have to be up to the requirements of protecting millions

of accounts. Hillary's server only has to protect one. Millions of commercial email accounts are hacked every year and sold on the black market. They aren't inherently secure.

There is a whole different magnitude of difficulty and responsibility in securing a commercial application and securing one email account. A few hundred lines of code to build a secure email server for one email account is trivial. Most IT staff aren't software engineers, so I can see how some wouldn't realize the difference in difficulty is mostly based on the scale of the application.

(e) if there was an active investigation, it should be provable if she wiped a large number of emails as email is a two way communication. Prosecutors should be able to prove that people she communicated with sent emails to her and that those emails don't exist on her server...in which they could infer some sort of cover up.

As far as f, you just continue to lob ad hominem instead of displaying your professionalism. Screaming "I'm a professional and you're a rookie" is a whole different league than actually demonstrating it. If saying it makes you feel better, I have a couple of cookies to offer you as well.

[Lord Magus]

60. No one ever gives a coherent answer as to why "a PRIVATE SERVER" is so awful.

Apparently it just is.

[qdouble]

63. Exactly, they are all like OMG, PRIVATE SERVER!!!!!

What makes private servers evil?

[2cannan]

68. Perhaps because no one else has access to it besides the people she wanted to have access?

Clearly she didn't want anyone to know what she was emailing about all while doing the people's business. That information belonged to us and covered work she performed while paid by us. And when you think about it, creating as many personal emails as work emails sort of tells you she wasn't doing much work after all. She could have used two separate email accounts on the same device to keep them separate. Of course this wouldn't have solved the classified email issue but at least she would have complied with FOIA requirements and not had everyone poking into her personal business.

[ljm2002]

74. The Secretary of State, just like other State Dept. employees...

...was under directive to use her .gov email for the bulk of her emails conducting State business.

She not only did not do so, she used her own private email account, hosted on her own private server, to conduct ALL of her official State Department business.

Her aides told State Department IT staff to stop asking about or mentioning her private server.

Her server was a Windows based server.

One of Bill's aides at their home "turned it off for a few minutes" in order to combat hackers that had been detected... and later she and her minions claimed there had been no evidence of hacking.

I made another post outlining several reasons why her private server was so awful. You can find it, I'm sure; it's right here on this here thread.

[Lord Magus]

83. The Secretary of State answers to POTUS, not to the IT department.

She was not bound by the IT department's "directives." And your reasons for why a private server is awful are completely unconvincing to me.

[ljm2002]

100. I would be seriously surprised...

...if Obama even knew about her private server, much less approved of it.

Also, anyone who is handling the sort of sensitive government information that a Secretary of State necessarily handles, ought to damned well know enough to listen to their IT staff.

But Hillary hired on a political operative and kinda-sorta-techie guy into State's IT department so she could have one of her own on the inside, rather than relying on the professional IT staff at State. By doing so she exhibited a real contempt for them and for her own responsibilities for handling information.

Since you did not mention, much less rebut any of the reasons I stated, I will give your response of being unconvinced all the weight it deserves, to wit: none, nada, zero, zilch.

[jack_krass]

103. would you want scientists developing top secret nuclear weapons

Using their own private server in their basement for email correspondence?

A private is as good as the person doing the setup, and probably less physically secure. How good was that person? Im sure FBI is lookinh at this

In the end though,, there needs to be standardization on how people do this. Rules were updated in 2009. She broke the rules.

[Sheepshank]

50. another Trump talking point repeated by so called Dems. Yup, another Trump stumper.

[Marr]

51. "Email protocol"?

We aren't talking about manners here-- we're talking about law. I want to see anyone who violates the law prosecuted, if there's a case to be made.

[pdsimdars]

53. Really, how many who are in prison who should be released if Hillary isn't indicted?

There are LOTS of them in there. Go do your own homework. There were a few recently. And every one of them did MUCH LESS than Hillary did.

[Lord Magus]

62. Like so many other things you post, that is a lie.

There is no one in prison for using private email to conduct their government business. No one.

[qdouble]

65. How much time did the last government official that used private emails get?

[pdsimdars]

124. I guess that means you believe Hillary more than the IG of the State Department.

No one else did what Hillary did.
No one else in the history of the country used their own private, non-government server for ALL their business.

I assume you refer to Powell. He did have a personal email account but it was coordinated with the government, they wanted him to popularize email. He may have sent a couple of dozen business related emails with his personal account but NONE contained classified information.
There were about 2200 classified emails on Hillary's personal server and 22 of them were at the highest level.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Why not go educate yourself so you don't show your ignorance?

Here's a good site.

http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_Timeline

[qdouble]

148. The thread isn't about whether or not Hillary clinton violated protocol....it is what is the

precedent of an official getting prison time related to their handling of email. Going on a rant that dodges the issue isn't helpful to the question at all, it's not as if I'm claiming Clinton did nothing wrong.

[pdsimdars]

198. It's not about the email it's about the PRIVATE SERVER.

No other government official passed around classified material on their private email. None.

[qdouble]

201. Other officials did send emails that were retroactively classified.

Hillary clinton contends: "Clinton only used her account for unclassified email. No information in Clinton's emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them.

When information is reviewed for public release, it is common for information previously unclassified to be upgraded to classified if the State Department or another agency believes its public release could cause potential harm to national security, law enforcement or diplomatic relations."

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

If that is in fact false, then we will see at the end of the investigation.

[NCTraveler]

56. I won't be happy until Skinner goes down. nt.

[B2G]

67. You lost me with your first sentence.

Secret republican my ass.

Wanker.

[qdouble]

76. It's a right wing scandal. I see tons of republicans posting the exact same stuff and using the

exact same sources that Bernie supporters are using. I can only guess as to who is who.

[B2G]

77. Whatever helps you sleep at night. nt

[Marr]

160. The FBI is not a right-wing think tank. /nt

[qdouble]

161. The FBI hasn't arrested her. No one knows what the results will be, but right-wingers

and bernie or busters speculate that she will be arrested and that she had evil intentions. Hard to tell which poster is the republican and which is the bernie or buster. The rhetoric is identical as well as the sources.

[Marr]

162. I'm sure it *is* hard for you to tell Republicans from Sanders supporters.

You can't seem to distinguish the FBI from Fox News, either.

[Vinca]

75. Who else had a private server? That's the real difference.

I read on a tech site that the system was as easy to access as Facebook for the first few weeks and apparently the tech guy was not certified to work on servers containing sensitive information. It's anyone's guess what might have been gleaned out of that thing.

[MariaThinks]

84. No it's not. The private server inside a firefall is not a differentiator.

[Vinca]

114. It is if the firewall isn't up to snuff.

She might have been safer routing her emails through Yahoo or Google or some other entity with more expertise than the fellow she had set this thing up. That, of course, wouldn't have been wise either, but wisdom doesn't seem to have reared its head when they decided to try to protect her communications from FOIA in case she ever ran for office again.

[qdouble]

89. MILLIONS OF COMMERCIAL EMAIL ACCOUNTS ARE HACKED EVERY YEAR

There is nothing inherently better about Colin Powell, Rice or Kerry using commercial email accounts from a security perspective.

[Vinca]

117. Powell, Rice and Kerry are not running for POTUS.

In any case, their usage combined was a teensy tiny fraction of Hillary's use of private email. I don't know about Powell or Rice, but Kerry has 2 accounts and rarely transacted any State Dept. business with his private email. Hillary should have known better and it was all done to protect her from FOIA. How'd that work out?

[qdouble]

120. We can all agree she violated protocol

The debate was about if there was ever any precedent in which we sent administration members to prison solely based on them using private email accounts. Her opponents try to throw in that she used a private email server as red meat even though it's not that much different than using gmail/yahoo, etc. If she's covering up stuff, that can stil be investigated...which they are doing now. Emails leave a paper trail as they communicate not only with the receiver, but may go through various servers when being transmitted from sender to receiver.

[Vinca]

122. What if her server was hacked and sensitive information has been made available

to people and governments who shouldn't have it? There was one communication about shutting it down because they were under attack again. I'm not saying Hillary should be sent off to the big house (not to be confused with White House), but people have been facing consequences for similar offenses. She shouldn't be above the law.

[qdouble]

123. The risk of her server being hacked isn't dramatically higher than the risk of someone's

gmail, yahoo or aol account being hacked though. So if we are to prosecute Hillary, it's only fitting that all former SOS's and administrators who used private email accounts be prosecuted as well.

[apnu]

142. I feel the same, but on DU, the email truthers only care about Hillary

I've had this conversation with them before. They will never admit any wrong doing by any other SoS other than Hillary Clinton. Further, they won't admit or acknowledge the problem goes way beyond the State Department. Multiple other government agencies and bodies, such as the Pentagon, communicated with Hillary Clinton on her private domain on her private server, knowing full well it was a private system, which probably violates multiple cybersecurity policies and other regulations they no doubt have. And along the way, it seems nobody said "Hold up, we can't discuss these matters on an open channel, my regs say I have to communicate on secure channels and I know state.gov is secure, therefore I will only talk to the SoS on her state.gov address."

This thing is a fantastic failure of IT security.

But, like I said, people are only interested in what Hillary did, everybody else gets a pass. Ergo, people talking about it that aren't SoS Kerry, the Dept. of Justice, and the FBI, are on a witch hunt.

[Vinca]

150. I guess it would depend on who let confidential data out of the bag and

the statute of limitations (if there is one for this sort of offense).

[gordianot]

95. I recently saw that server referenced as an offline server.

From what I have read, you can read content but not send messages.

[Vinca]

118. Then how did they learn about it in the first place?

Her private account showed up on John Podesta's emails that were hacked by Guccifer. She sent Podesta documents and solicited his advice against the wishes of the POTUS who didn't want him anywhere near the State Department.

[gordianot]

135. The way I had it explained to me:

Others can read messages but not use the server to send mail. You would want an offline server in order to screen in coming messages as to source.

It was Robert Gates who identified Hillary's server as an "offline server". As servers go not a good choice.

Really odd

[2cannan]

140. Vinca, not John Podesta, it was Sidney Blumenthal. nt

[Vinca]

149. Oops . . . you're exactly right. I got the cast of characters scrambled.

[gordianot]

91. Hillary's Scooter Libby will be found then promptly pardoned.

Before any jury hears a case if Hillary is involved in an indictment she will be pardoned immediately. The question will be who is the Democratic nominee I have strong doubts it will be Bernie Sanders. A right wing smear has finally hit pay dirt.

[napi21]

92. Yes. GW Bush & Karl Rove n/t

[Live and Learn]

94. As I recall, plenty of us here advocated that Republicans be jailed for even lesser email offenses

than Hillary has committed.

[bkkyosemite]

108. Bill Clinton they work as a team. She and he put our Country in jeopardy and used

her SOS status to do favors for those who donated to their foundation. Our security has been breached....they just aren't telling the whole story because she is ordained.

[840high]

125. ...!100++++

[donco]

126. And that

concerns you?

[The_Casual_Observer]

128. This is more Benghazi nonsense.

And Rose Law Firm and on and on.
There is nothing to see.

[Mike Nelson]

132. I've also...

...pressed for the exact law broken. I've heard multiple laws were broken, including treason. I also ask what punishment people think Hillary (and Bill, who is also mentioned as a co-conspirator) should receive. I guess people feel life in prison with no parole is most appropriate (meaning we avoid the spectacle of executing the Clintons). But we do need to see an outline of the crimes they committed. A forwarded email, later labeled classified, on the Clinton's server isn't going to convict them. Simply having the server isn't a crime. In fact, the State Department and/or Hillary Clinton can post rules and regulations for everyone and have its leader NOT follow them. I must be missing something in this crime...

[EndElectoral]

134. I don't know of a precedent of another SOS using a private server. I'll go with the FBI decision.

[Aerows]

143. I thought Bush should have been

enough so that I wrote to Patrick Leahy about it. Uh ... that was back in 2006?

Let's not pretend that nobody was concerned about this before now. Most of us can have several trains of thought and areas of interest while being able to walk chewing gum.

[KULawHawk]

151. A large number of the W. white house staff...

Who she called out herself and turn around and did the same thing. Except, no one else is currently running for President and under multiple FBI INVESTIGATIONS.

<iframe width="288" height="162" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[trudyco]

153. Cheryl Mills has a history of covering Clinton Email Scandals... so that would be nice

Oh wait, your title and then your text were actually two different things. Should or have been?

[surrealAmerican]

154. It isn't all or nothing.

You seem to think she should either be in jail, or our presidential nominee.

What she did was illegal, even if it doesn't merit a prison sentence.

[qdouble]

156. This thread is specifically in response to people who make it seem like Hillary should be in prison.

I understand that there are people outside of that spectrum, but this thread isn't for that.

[MFM008]

155. Op

Your "question" is like this, I don't care about HRCS emails but here's why she needs to go to jail.
She's NOT going to be indicted...

Twist the words, the meaning is clear.

[qdouble]

157. I don't believe she's going to be indicted nor do I think she's going to go to prison

I just see a lot of people screaming she should go to prison, and I'm wondering if there is any history of this as people are acting like Hillary is receiving special treatment by not being locked up yet.

[Thinkingabout]

158. Hillary will not be locked up for the emails, it is a good possibility Bernie and Jane Sanders

Will be Locked up for bank fraud, there is a law against bank fraud, there isnt a law against emails.

[jwirr]

186. Number one: It is not about the emails. It is about the

server and the preservation of records, specifically sensitive records.

Others had personal email accounts but not servers. And as for who gets jail time? Why don't we let the FBI decide that. I seriously doubt that there will be any jail time because she is a former first lady. There will be some other form of punishment if called for.

[99Forever]

191. Unless you are the FBI Agent in charge or the Federal Prosecutor or the Federal Judge who's

... court this lands in, what you do or don't "give a shit about Hillary's emails" is precisely meaningless to anyone or anything.

So.

Do you hold one of those three positions?

[qdouble]

204. And this post from you is meaningful to whom?

[99Forever]

218. Anyone with a functional brain.

[Hoyt]

203. Every person who has violated company policies intentionally or inadvertently.

[larkrake]

206. Rove who actually destroyed the emails

well, who knows which relevant e-mails Hill admitted she destroyed that she called personal- HA!