If Edward Snowden Is Right About Clinton's Emails, Bernie Sanders Will Win a Landslide Victory

[Catherina]

If Edward Snowden Is Right About Clinton's Emails, Bernie Sanders Will Win a Landslide Victory

Posted: 10/01/2015 11:01 am EDT

H. A. Goodman
Columnist published in The Cleveland Plain Dealer, The Baltimore Sun, The Hill, Salon, The Jerusalem Post www.hagoodman.com


Perhaps nobody on the planet knows more about intelligence protocol than Edward Snowden. If Snowden says it's "completely ridiculous" to believe that Clinton's emails were safe, then yes, it's fair to include his viewpoint in any critique of Hillary Clinton's latest controversy. In addition, since I believe Senator Bernie Sanders is desperately needed at this point in U.S. history, and electing Clinton or a Republican would essentially be nominating the same president on war and foreign policy, it's important to address relevant analysis of the email controversy.

...

... since we know that some Clinton supporters have no qualms about comparing Bernie Sanders to a Fox News socialist or even linking him to Hugo Chavez, let's simply address reality while others genuinely "go negative." The reality is that other intelligence experts have come to the same conclusion as Snowden.

...

Yes, Bernie Sanders will win the presidency because of his bold message and policies, but since Clinton's PAC's and supporters will inevitably fabricate a narrative about Sanders, the least any writer can do is simply state the facts. A POLITICO article titled Snowden: No way Hillary's private server was secure highlights why the Democratic Party should be concerned about Hillary Clinton in a general election:

Edward Snowden blasted Hillary Clinton's assertion that her State Department emails were secure on a private server, calling the notion "completely ridiculous" in excerpts of an interview with Al Jazeera English published Thursday.

"When the unclassified systems of the United States government, which has a full-time information security staff regularly gets hacked, the idea that someone keeping a private server in the renovated bathroom of a server farm in Colorado, is more secure is completely ridiculous," Snowden said, referring to the physical location of the server hosted by Denver-based Platte River Networks.

...

Not everything is "Benghazi." Hillary Clinton is competing against Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination and a genuine distinction should be made, not just on issues, but on character. If you feel that Clinton's stances on war, foreign policy, and gay marriage warrant the presidency, then you might be a "Facebook liberal." As for me, I'm voting for Bernie Sanders. He doesn't need a Clinton scandal to win the Democratic nomination, but he will win the nomination in a landslide of Edward Snowden is correct.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/if-edward-snowden-is-right-about-clintons-emails_b_8225470.html

[brush]

1. Snowden has now figured out how to get his name back in the news and extend his 15 minutes.

[hrmjustin]

2. Well said!

[shenmue]

37. Yeah

[DURHAM D]

3. LOL What a tool.

Did he comment on this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141221627

[PatrynXX]

59. well yes Bernie is no Conservative and thats why people like him

as for her emails being secure. hey why is it I flip off my laptops webcam with a smile all the time. If her emails were secure she's no geek. and Non geeks should stop acting like they are. A geek will admit they don't know everything. Nothing is absolute. One doesn't make assumptions. IT"S SECURE!!


Although Bernie shouldn't be using a traitor as a way to pump him up. But if Bernie isn't a Democrat , I'm donald duck

[DURHAM D]

68. Huh? nt

[rhett o rick]

109. We want a change from the status quo that has put 16 million of American children

in poverty. About 32 million live in low income homes. A vote for the status quo is a vote to continue the growing wealth disparity and the growing rate of poverty.

The choice is support the 1% or the 99%.

[Uncle Joe]

15. Snowden isn't the only one

First, while it is accurate for Secretary Clinton to say that when she was in office there was not a flat, categorical prohibition on federal government officials ever using their personal email accounts for the conduct of official business, that’s a far different thing from saying (as she apparently would like to) that a government official could use his or her personal email account exclusively, for all official email communications, as she actually did. In fact, the Federal Records Act dictates otherwise.

That law, which applies to all federal agency employees who are not within the White House itself, requires the comprehensive documentation of the conduct of official business, and it has long done so by regulating the creation, maintenance, preservation and, ultimately, the disposition of agency records. When it comes to “modern-day” email communications, as compared to the paper memoranda of not so long ago, these communications now are themselves the very means of conducting official business, by definition.

(snip)

Second, the official availability of official email communications is not just a matter of concern for purposes of the Federal Records Act only. It also makes an enormous (and highly foreseeable) difference to the proper implementation of the Freedom of Information Act (known as the “FOIA” to its friends, a group that evidently does not include Secretary Clinton). That is because the starting point for handling a FOIA request is the search that an agency must conduct for all records responsive to that request’s particular specifications. So any FOIA request that requires an agency first to locate responsive email messages sent to or from that agency’s head, for instance, is necessarily dependent on those records being locatable in the first place. And an agency simply cannot do that properly for any emails (let alone all such emails) that have been created, and are maintained, entirely beyond the agency’s reach. Or, as it sometimes is said somewhat cynically in the FOIA community, “You can’t disclose what you can’t find.”

In this case, which is truly unprecedented, no matter what Secretary Clinton would have one believe, she managed successfully to insulate her official emails, categorically, from the FOIA, both during her tenure at State and long after her departure from it—perhaps forever. “Nice work if you can get it,” one might say, especially if your experience during your husband’s presidency gives you good reason (nay, even highly compelling motivation) to relegate unto yourself such control if at all possible.

(snip)

Third, there is the compounding fact that Secretary Clinton did not merely use a personal email account; she used one that atypically operated solely through her own personal email server, which she evidently had installed in her home. This meant that, unlike the multitudes who use a Gmail account, for instance, she was able to keep her communications entirely “in house,” even more deeply within her personal control. No “cloud” for posterity, or chance of Google receiving a congressional subpoena—not for her. No potentially pesky “metadata” surrounding her communications or detailed server logs to complicate things. And absolutely no practical constraint on her ability to dispose of any official email of “hers,” for any reason, at any time, entirely on her own. Bluntly put, when this unique records regime was established, somebody was asleep at the switch, at either the State Department or the National Archives and Records Administration (which oversees compliance with the Federal Records Act)—or both.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-defense-laughable-foia-116116#ixzz3nL1c8zrd

[Tab]

75. I'm not sure I'd call gmail "safer" than a private server

But for that email to really be secure they'd need all kind of elaborate stuff (and even then it's never totally secure) so if she can't be bothered to use a second phone or email account or whatever, I doubt she'd be willing to be bothered setting up a system more secure than the State Department's.

[Uncle Joe]

78. And it's not just a question of hacking security but government oversight as well.

If every Department Head could set up their own server, it would facilitate creating a shadow government, accountability would be greatly diminished.

[Tab]

85. Absolutely true

Not that I wasn't convinced we didn't have one spring into place after a certain election some 15 years ago.

[brush]

79. It was/is ex-president Bill Clinton's private server already in service

You think an ex-pres would have some amateur set up his server, or trained professionals?

[Uncle Joe]

87. Was ex-President Clinton in government service when this server was set up or

did it come after he was out of office?

Not that it makes any difference but I'm curious.

[dreamnightwind]

95. Thanks, that post goes to what I think is relevant

I can see how there could be a security problem. My take on that has been that it's mostly Republicans hoping to find such a problem.

The problem, to me, has always been that government's records and communications are supposed to beling to us, the people, and to the historical record. Hillary turned her back on this, thwarting discovery and archival research that relates to the inner workings of what our State Department was up to in the Obama era under Hillary. That, to me, is not acceptable, and it telegraphs what kind of transparenly we could expect from a Hillary presidency. I think we have a right to know what our Stet Department is saying to people like the Israeli ambassador or the Saudi royal family, and to corporate movers and shakers, to throw out a few arbitrary examples.

Accountabilty is extremely important, without it we are living in some kind of Deep State that only pays empty lip service to what the people think and want. No thanks to that.

[PatrickforO]

126. This is what my wife says.

While I think that using a personal server for state department emails was a serious lapse in judgment, my wife feels that Clinton planned her emails this way so she'd have total control over them - nothing then would leak. My wife says that Clinton is very smart and her motive was secrecy from her own political enemies as opposed to potential enemies of this nation.

This is among many reasons I cannot in good conscience support Clinton and am in fact supporting Bernie.

[question everything]

43. Indeed. And we should take his opinion because? (nt)

[roguevalley]

72. he's right.

[leftofcool]

56. Yep!

[Demeter]

69. Denial, it's such a futile exercise

I hope your friends and family have enough support for when Reality comes crashing in on you.

[brush]

77. Hope your's does too

Excuse me, but I don't think a defector should be poking his nose into our politics.

[grasswire]

110. who is a defector? a defector?

???

[brush]

115. "Defector" is a euphemism for what some others call Snowden

[treestar]

84. +1 zillion

[BlueWaveDem]

4. It's completely ridiculous to suggest any server is fully secure.

But the State Dept gets hit with millions of attempts every month, not Hillary's server though.

[DURHAM D]

5. LOL. Facts. Damn facts.

Facts are inconvenient.

[Fawke Em]

44. Except these facts are wrong.

Clinton's server was not secure and not even as secure as State's.

State has layers of security. You might get into their servers' "lobbies," but you're not going to get into the safe rooms. Seriously, you're not. Just because dot gov had some servers hacked doesn't mean anyone got anymore info other than employee records. National security secrets are much more protected.

State has an IT security team who log and monitor the system, who put controls on data access, who encrypt data and audit their work for quality control.

It appears the Clinton server didn't have this kind of security. In fact, it had less security than many home computers.

Yes. Facts are important. Clinton's fans should study a bit about IT security before simply announcing "Well, dot gov was hacked!" because it's a bit more involved than that.

[Metric System]

6. If Sanders becomes President he needs to reward HA Goodman with Press Secretary position.

[riversedge]

130. I saw the authors name and stopped reading.

[Uncle Joe]

7. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Catherina.

[Catherina]

9. You're welcome Uncle Joe!

How strange, out of 7 replies, yours is the only one I can see lol. And a good thing I'm sure.

[Uncle Joe]

18. It's mostly attacking the messenger stuff and stating that since government also gets hacked

what the hell.

Peace to you, Catherina.

[Catherina]

25. Ah. Probably the same posters who attacked every Snowden thread over the years

Thanks. I'm not missing anything lol. Peace to you too

[brush]

61. Maybe some of the same posters who don't think a defector should inject himself in to our politics

[Fawke Em]

45. Yeah - touting a line that's basically bullshit.

So what if dot gov was hacked?

Do these posters really think that once you're in a network, you have access to everything on it? This isn't 1985, folks. Professional IT security departments have classification systems that prescribe varying degrees of security. What's on the HR department's portion of the server is probably not as secure as what's on other portions.

I really don't know how better to explain that to these people.

[Uncle Joe]

51. I agree, Fawke Em and it's not just a matter of security but of government supervision and control.

For any department head to set up their own private server in effect can create a shadow government.

Peace to you.

[Catherina]

53. Thanks for all your patient posts trying to explain to the unwilling n/t

[senz]

103. Believe me, it's a good thing. I don't have anyone on ignore yet

and sometimes the stuff I read makes me nauseated. But so far I'm curious to see how their minds work. Today, they sound like Republicans.

[Catherina]

104. You're a brave one Citizen Senz

I have no patience because it takes me away from much more productive uses of time. But I salute you for your fortitude!

[senz]

106. Thanks, Catherina, but eventually I'll be joining you in blocking out the noise.

Still need to get my bearings. Today I'm impressed with the degree of conservatism, small-mindedness and ignorance among some. I'm thinking it might be a waste of time to engage them. This thread alone shows incredible ignorance about Snowden. I really admire all the things you do here on DU, Catherina. You must read widely, because you come up with so much good information and interesting articles. You've made a difference in educating me, and I appreciate it. If Bernie makes it, it will be because of people like you.

And when you have the time and inclination, you'll have to let us know how you're doing with your mom's learn-about-Bernie campaign. I hope she's coming round to our side!

[carolinayellowdog]

107. there's a reason Catherina was subjected to pages of abuse on a "certain site"

"No good deed shall go unpunished" must be their motto as she has been more enlightening re Snowden than anyone else

[Catherina]

116. Really lol? How flattering

and there I was thinking that the farcical accusation of being a "self-hating Black woman", for daring to remind people Martin Luther King was against imperialism, was as tortured as it gets.

Thanks. Finding out that people I have no respect for on issues are that obsessed, only encourages me to crank up the volume.



As I type, Snowden is up to 1.25M followers as his detractors, who love their personal comfort more than they love fellow Americans or our millions of victims in this world, drift away into oblivion.

10 years from now, who will even remember those twisted, Snowden-hating asshats?

I can barely remember them now lol.

[Catherina]

118. You're really kind Senz. Blocking out the noise will free up your time

to get the word out about Bernie to more people.

The sock goal behind all that noise is to prevent us from getting more news out and reaching more people to dispel their smear lies by bogging us down in a merry-go-round of bullshit. Refuse to play, don't engage.

If Bernie makes it, it will be because of all of us. I'm just a small cog who stands in awe of what others are doing! But I'm flattered and thankful that I made a small difference in *educating* you although I don't think you needed my help to begin with.

And my mom? She was lovingly put on notice by all her children that she's voting for the world she's leaving us and we don't want it to be a Clinton world. Then we started filling her in on some Clinton stuff she was unaware of like how HRC manipulated US coverage of Wikileaks and her personal responsibility for the carnage in Libya & Syria, which only added to my mom's anger at Glass-Steagall.

I'm afraid Hillary can't count on my mom anymore She's come around and feeling the Bern. The time magazine article helped a lot too.

[senz]

119. I think you're right that arguing with them is pointless.

Guess I'll never understand their passion for a candidate who is secretive, enamored of money and power and, imo, extremely dishonest -- but whatever it is, they're totally dug in. So I'll try to identify the ones who exist on this forum only to throw rocks at Bernie, do damage to Bernie supporters, and go round and round in pointless arguments -- and put those individuals on ignore. That's not all Hillary supporters; it leaves enough sincere, respectful ones to keep the forum lively. And, yes, this should free up some time. It should also clear out bad vibes, always good for personal energy, peace, optimism, and joy. There are some people, like you and Sabrina, who seem to have found that balance. One of my favorite DU people (and fervent Bernie supporter) is an amazing verbal warrior who seems to actually enjoy sparring with them. She's good at it, and she doesn't throw potshots, rather, she corrects their inaccuracies and calls them to task when necessary. So I think she serves a purpose on this forum. Although of course I worry for her well-being. (It's amazing how you can worry about people you've only met online.) But she has thick skin and a good head on her shoulders.

Sorry for blabbering; just trying to wrap my head around the situation here at DU. Some of us need to fit our experiences into our moral and philosophical frameworks.

Sounds like your mom's got herself some very cool kids. Glad to hear she's come round on Bernie, because I know he'll be there for her, if we can get him elected. It also points to the value of traditional media, like familiar magazines, in communicating with older people who aren't comfortable with computers. The Bernie campaign should keep that in mind, too.

We all have an amazing task ahead of us. This is turning out to be an exciting time that we will all remember. So glad to be on the positive, hopeful, life-affirming side of it. Go Bernie! Go Mom!

[TexasProgresive]

8. So, Snowen confirms what I always thought

It doesn't matter whose, where or what server email resides on in is insecure. So this is much ado about nothing.
"When the unclassified systems of the United States government, which has a full-time information security staff regularly gets hacked, the idea that someone keeping a private server in the renovated bathroom of a server farm in Colorado, is more secure is completely ridiculous," Snowden said.

But Snowden's logic that the government systems that regularly get hacked in his words are any more secure than the server in renovated bathroom seems a bit disingenuous to me.

BTW I am not a fan of Ms. Clinton; rather I am a fan of clear thinking that does not grasp at far fetched ideas.

[Catherina]

20. I think his point is a lot more than that. HRC's server didn't even have a real SSL certificate,

just a self-signed one that even Google Chrome regards as invalid, much less the government which uses military-grade certificates and encryption schemes.

Here's what hackers got when they went to mail.clintonemail.com
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--0D5onmod--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/vzedh0alqbwmbs2wvmnr.png

and hackers had 2 years to crack that. Getting into a government server is a lot more complicated, plus they have 24/7 server security staff monitoring and thwarting attempted intrusions.

[TexasProgresive]

28. My Dad (rip) was a Cold Warrier in Army Intelligence

We were have a discussion about governments penchant for secrecy. I said it seemed to me that all the government intelligence of all the various nations knew all the secrets and the only people who were in the dark were the citizens. He just nodded in agreement.

Anything that is transmitted over the internet should be just considered out there for the picking. No classified material should be transmitted using such an insecure medium. But stupid is as stupid does.

[Fawke Em]

46. Read my post above.

There is a huge difference.

It's just the news media doesn't explain it very well.

You can't go everywhere just because you hack into the server. Some files on these servers are far more protected. The reason someone can hack into the lobby of a server is because it's attached to the Internet. I know for a fact that State has servers that are NEVER attached to the Internet and cannot be accessed by a hacker who happens to break into the ones that are.

[Scootaloo]

128. You're talking to people who think AVG Free is sufficient security.

Basically, the tech security version of people who think snowballs prove global warming is fake.

[DavidDvorkin]

10. "Perhaps nobody on the planet knows more about intelligence protocol than Edward Snowden."

Really? That seems a bit excessive.

[randome]

11. Nobody but Snowden knows how to download Sharepoint files.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Dawgs]

14. Was about to post the same thing.

[frazzled]

27. Ya think?

[Leith]

70. A Biy Excessive?

How about supernova-style exaggeration? He's not a security expert! He had access to files. He released them to the world. Any 10 year old sitting in his office chair could have done that.

[Demeter]

71. Really?

Then when you realize that Ed Snowden not only hacked the govt., hacked the NSA, and is still free, plus has started a global movement to shut down the government hacking all of us, you will see that in fact Ed is more knowledgeable than most if not all of the spooks and wonks. And they are VERY upset about it. But they still haven't won or even tied.

[OilemFirchen]

98. I read that and coffee shot out of every orifice.

That was painful.

[DavidDvorkin]

100. And now we can say that perhaps no one on the planet knows more about coffee

shooting out of every orifice than OilemFirchen.

[bunnies]

12. That "Facebook liberal" article is fucking hilarious.

And so true!

[m-lekktor]

17. it's great! If I were a Hillary supporter I wouldn't think so though. nt

[bunnies]

19. ha. No. I'd imagine I wouldnt either. ;) nt

[Catherina]

22. I know. I love it too lol n/t

[haikugal]

30. I loved that too!

So on point and we've seen it all right here on DU as well!

[restorefreedom]

13. key takeaway

bernie winning in a landslide

it's gonna happen, folks

feelthebern2016

[Catherina]

23. Indeed he will! n/t

[moobu2]

16. H. A. Goodman is a Bernie Sanders propagandist

masquerading as a journalist. And Huffington Post absolutely despises the Clinton's is why they let H. A. Goodman pimp for Bernie on the site. I wouldn't put much into what he says.

[Uncle Joe]

29. As of March 16th 2015, the person that wrote this article was planning on voting for Hillary if

she was the nominee.

First, while it is accurate for Secretary Clinton to say that when she was in office there was not a flat, categorical prohibition on federal government officials ever using their personal email accounts for the conduct of official business, that’s a far different thing from saying (as she apparently would like to) that a government official could use his or her personal email account exclusively, for all official email communications, as she actually did. In fact, the Federal Records Act dictates otherwise.

That law, which applies to all federal agency employees who are not within the White House itself, requires the comprehensive documentation of the conduct of official business, and it has long done so by regulating the creation, maintenance, preservation and, ultimately, the disposition of agency records. When it comes to “modern-day” email communications, as compared to the paper memoranda of not so long ago, these communications now are themselves the very means of conducting official business, by definition.

(snip)

Second, the official availability of official email communications is not just a matter of concern for purposes of the Federal Records Act only. It also makes an enormous (and highly foreseeable) difference to the proper implementation of the Freedom of Information Act (known as the “FOIA” to its friends, a group that evidently does not include Secretary Clinton). That is because the starting point for handling a FOIA request is the search that an agency must conduct for all records responsive to that request’s particular specifications. So any FOIA request that requires an agency first to locate responsive email messages sent to or from that agency’s head, for instance, is necessarily dependent on those records being locatable in the first place. And an agency simply cannot do that properly for any emails (let alone all such emails) that have been created, and are maintained, entirely beyond the agency’s reach. Or, as it sometimes is said somewhat cynically in the FOIA community, “You can’t disclose what you can’t find.”

In this case, which is truly unprecedented, no matter what Secretary Clinton would have one believe, she managed successfully to insulate her official emails, categorically, from the FOIA, both during her tenure at State and long after her departure from it—perhaps forever. “Nice work if you can get it,” one might say, especially if your experience during your husband’s presidency gives you good reason (nay, even highly compelling motivation) to relegate unto yourself such control if at all possible.

(snip)

Third, there is the compounding fact that Secretary Clinton did not merely use a personal email account; she used one that atypically operated solely through her own personal email server, which she evidently had installed in her home. This meant that, unlike the multitudes who use a Gmail account, for instance, she was able to keep her communications entirely “in house,” even more deeply within her personal control. No “cloud” for posterity, or chance of Google receiving a congressional subpoena—not for her. No potentially pesky “metadata” surrounding her communications or detailed server logs to complicate things. And absolutely no practical constraint on her ability to dispose of any official email of “hers,” for any reason, at any time, entirely on her own. Bluntly put, when this unique records regime was established, somebody was asleep at the switch, at either the State Department or the National Archives and Records Administration (which oversees compliance with the Federal Records Act)—or both.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-defense-laughable-foia-116116#ixzz3nL1c8zrd

The last paragraph on the link states his intentions.

[moobu2]

32. And if Bernie Sanders is the nominee (he wont be)

he'll get to watch a republican getting sworn in in January 2017.

[Uncle Joe]

35. I believe he would vote for Bernie should he become the nominee, the point being not all critics

of Hillary's actions in regards to setting up her own server outside government supervision or control are anti-Hillary.

[Gore1FL]

50. Wow, you are saying Hillary's supporters would vote GOP or not vote?

That's a bold accusation and condemnation of their loyalty to party and country. Why do you feel that way about Hillary supporters?

[moobu2]

89. Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat

He's just using the Democratic Party.

Why cant you people understand that Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat so he wont get the support from democrats that a democrat would get from the Democratic Party because HE IS NOT A DEMOCRAT.

Get it?

[shenmue]

94. He was Independent right until he figured the Democrats have more money

[Gore1FL]

105. You said "is the nominee"

He caucuses with the Democrats in our two-party system. He's a defacto Democrat either way.

In any event, It's weird you think Hillary supporters are so shallow as to not support the nominee of their party. You support the same candidate, why do you speak so disparagingly about them?

[The Green Manalishi]

66. Bullshit.

[Z_California]

83. Yeah, well that's just, like, your opinion man

[DanTex]

33. And before that he was a Rand Paul supporter. Yet somehow he's DU's favorite.

[mcar]

21. Nice of the author to tell us who he's voting for

Now it's even easier to doubt his anti-HRC screeds.

Any avowed Hillary supporting "journalist" posting anti-Bernie articles on such a regular basis would be royally castigated on this site, by the same people who extol this guy.

[shenmue]

92. Oh, sure

It stopped being a pan-Democratic website a long time ago.

[WillyT]

24. K & R !!!

[jonno99]

26. Stopped taking this thread seriously after reading: "Perhaps nobody on the planet knows more..."

"Perhaps nobody on the planet knows more about intelligence protocol than Edward Snowden"

Really?

Doubtful...

[shenmue]

93. Haaaaaa

I noticed that too.

[haikugal]

31. Thanks Catherina..K&R!

[upaloopa]

34. Federal government emails are not secure. I got chewed out by HUD yesterday for emailing a document

rather then faxing it. Here is the chewing out I got, it says HUD’s e-mail is not secure

Good Morning,

I cannot open attachments that contain privacy act information. It has been deleted from my e-mail and I suggest as provided: : Emailing and receiving e-mailed LOCCS form or any security documents is an OIG reportable security violation. As a result, I must advise you to remove this document form from your e-mail, immediately and notify me when you have done so. The document was deleted from my e-mail without being read. There is no documentation anywhere, published or verbal that OCFO allows forms or any other documents to be e-mailed and your management received detailed information of this violation. In fact, e-mailing security documents is discussed in the Departments mandatory security training for all employees. HUD’s e-mail is not secure, thus by your e-mailing copy (ies) of HUD form 27054 or other documents, you have been exposed to the potential for identity theft. This violation compromises the integrity of the Department and the Federal Security protocol and can result in disciplinary action.

Please fax the document per the requirements as well as mail the original. Thank you

Sincerely,

Security Administrator for OCFO Systems
Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street S.W. Room 3114
Washington, DC 20410
direct line
- Security Staff

[Fawke Em]

47. Right. You had a team telling you not to do that.

Clinton didn't.

Thanks for making my point.

[upaloopa]

62. What was your point?

[Fawke Em]

96. That, while no server is totally secure, Dot Gov has professionals

on staff to instruct what to do and what not to do to ensure there is training and safeguards.

They're also there to layer security so that one hacker can't get the keys to the classified information. The Dot Gov servers aren't all connected for a reason.

Clinton didn't have an IT security team. She didn't even have some basic protection on that server. She just emailed willy-nilly and in foreign airspace on a Blackberry, which was notorious for being hard to secure (Do you see them anymore? No? There's a reason for that.), that could be easily intercepted.

Look, I know 90 percent of this Benghazi/Email shit is Republican bull crap, but the security of her server isn't.

I don't think her server had access to the Dot Gov servers, so there's at least that, but we do know she and Huma were emailing information that was sensitive (even if it wasn't classified).

[upaloopa]

97. There was no security breach there were no laws

broken the point is moot other than to bash Hillary.

[L. Coyote]

36. Yes, Sanders is completely dependent on Hillary having a scandal to win.

You do realize how far-fetched and ridiculous this cause-effect chain is? Your logic is illogical. Have you been watching too much Fox or something?

Sanders can still win a landslide even if the Pope beatifies Hillary and the Republicans endorse her.

[Catherina]

40. I don't think that's at all what the article implies

as a matter of fact, the article clearly states "Yes, Bernie Sanders will win the presidency because of his bold message and policies".

I don't watch Fox news or any of that MSM garbage. Maybe you had Fox on in the background and missed that?

[upaloopa]

42. Then why do Sanders supporters bring up the

email scandal almost daily. I challenge Sanders supporters, if Bernie doesn't need a Hillary scandal to win, to stop carrying water for the repubs.

[Fawke Em]

48. Being concerned about the protection of national security is

NOT carrying water for Republicans.

I work in IT security. I know what's at stake here and it has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders.

The Bengazhi shit is a Republican con and 90 percent of what has come out about Clinton's emails are also Republican-driven, but the issue about whether the server had solid IT security controls is not. That one is pretty serious.

[Metric System]

73. Concerned about national security while deifying Snowden. Uh huh.

[treestar]

86. Hit the nail on the head

Of all people who should not be worried about it, are those who think "transparency" means it all should be revealed anyway.

[demwing]

49. They don't. But if they did, its probably because they secretly

enjoy the idea of mouths foaming, keyboards banging, and heads exploding over in the Hillary Group.

Again, it doesn't matter, because the great majority of Bernie supporters don't give a shit about her emails...

[Major Hogwash]

111. Bernie doesn't need a scandal to beat Hillary, he has a copy of her voting record.

Boo-yah!

[L. Coyote]

117. Their positions on the political spectrum certainly place Bernie further from center.

So the question is more one of where the voters who vote in primaries will be positioned. Bernie is certainly exciting more people and will bring a lot of voters into the process. That's a huge plus no matter who gets the nomination. It remains early in the race as long as Joe Biden says he's still considering the possibility. His excitement perfectly timed will add a lot of interest and benefit participation and issue dialog. In many ways, Biden will contribute to communicating the 2016 message to the voters, candidate or otherwise, but being in the race ready to serve on day one also adds a sharper contrast to Republicans without experience.

When Republicans resemble reality television in a clown car, you know who's going to win in 2016.

[Todays_Illusion]

38. I just can't get on board with any suggestion that Snowden said anything not already known?

Last edited Thu Oct 1, 2015, 02:53 PM - Edit history (1)

That is a lot of speculation reported to this one by that one and vague beyond readability.

I wonder how many of you know this about the Wiki guy, Asange, Snowden, Greenwald, as well as theguardian.com and the other publishers promoting Snowden, like Washington Post, as hero are all libertarian?


Washington Post owned by libertarian Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.

[Uncle Joe]

41. A true libertarian would most likely support Hillary's decision of placing her server outside

of government supervision or control.

The less government power or oversight the better.

[Todays_Illusion]

65. We can all stop worrying about it, (R) Speaker candidate Kevin McCarthy said, it is all only a

political attack, graciously paid for by the tax payers and supported with full hue and cry by the entire MSM.

[Uncle Joe]

67. He was referring to Benghazi, that's a separate issue from Hillary setting up her own server, even

people that support Hillary have taken her to task on this.

As of March 16th 2015, the person that wrote this article was planning on voting for Hillary if she was the nominee.

First, while it is accurate for Secretary Clinton to say that when she was in office there was not a flat, categorical prohibition on federal government officials ever using their personal email accounts for the conduct of official business, that’s a far different thing from saying (as she apparently would like to) that a government official could use his or her personal email account exclusively, for all official email communications, as she actually did. In fact, the Federal Records Act dictates otherwise.

That law, which applies to all federal agency employees who are not within the White House itself, requires the comprehensive documentation of the conduct of official business, and it has long done so by regulating the creation, maintenance, preservation and, ultimately, the disposition of agency records. When it comes to “modern-day” email communications, as compared to the paper memoranda of not so long ago, these communications now are themselves the very means of conducting official business, by definition.

(snip)

Second, the official availability of official email communications is not just a matter of concern for purposes of the Federal Records Act only. It also makes an enormous (and highly foreseeable) difference to the proper implementation of the Freedom of Information Act (known as the “FOIA” to its friends, a group that evidently does not include Secretary Clinton). That is because the starting point for handling a FOIA request is the search that an agency must conduct for all records responsive to that request’s particular specifications. So any FOIA request that requires an agency first to locate responsive email messages sent to or from that agency’s head, for instance, is necessarily dependent on those records being locatable in the first place. And an agency simply cannot do that properly for any emails (let alone all such emails) that have been created, and are maintained, entirely beyond the agency’s reach. Or, as it sometimes is said somewhat cynically in the FOIA community, “You can’t disclose what you can’t find.”

In this case, which is truly unprecedented, no matter what Secretary Clinton would have one believe, she managed successfully to insulate her official emails, categorically, from the FOIA, both during her tenure at State and long after her departure from it—perhaps forever. “Nice work if you can get it,” one might say, especially if your experience during your husband’s presidency gives you good reason (nay, even highly compelling motivation) to relegate unto yourself such control if at all possible.

(snip)

Third, there is the compounding fact that Secretary Clinton did not merely use a personal email account; she used one that atypically operated solely through her own personal email server, which she evidently had installed in her home. This meant that, unlike the multitudes who use a Gmail account, for instance, she was able to keep her communications entirely “in house,” even more deeply within her personal control. No “cloud” for posterity, or chance of Google receiving a congressional subpoena—not for her. No potentially pesky “metadata” surrounding her communications or detailed server logs to complicate things. And absolutely no practical constraint on her ability to dispose of any official email of “hers,” for any reason, at any time, entirely on her own. Bluntly put, when this unique records regime was established, somebody was asleep at the switch, at either the State Department or the National Archives and Records Administration (which oversees compliance with the Federal Records Act)—or both.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-defense-laughable-foia-116116#ixzz3nL1c8zrd

[Todays_Illusion]

108. The email story is from the committee, they had nothing until they got creative over email.

His statement meant all the work of the committee was to discredit Hillary.

ps. Politico is not a source for anything but nasty gossip and political attacks.

[Uncle Joe]

120. The Hillary having her own server is a factual issue and Politico isn't the only one acknowledging

this.

How that came to be found out is irrelevant to the issue of a department head having their own server outside of government supervision and control.

[Todays_Illusion]

121. The Republicans still have nothing and you are moving the goal/topic.

As evidence shows this is common, if it is illegal, why is it only illegal for Hillary?


Not to mention, do you think anything is free from the scrutiny of one of our seventeen intelligence agencies?


http://www.dni.gov/index.php/intelligence-community/members-of-the-ic

[Uncle Joe]

122. No other department head had their own private "server," Hillary is the first.

Using government servers allows "We the People" government to have hands on direct supervision and increases accountability.

If you allow every department head to have their own server, ultimately you will facilitate or make easier a shadow government to operate.

[Todays_Illusion]

123. You cling to your story even as the evidence shows you are wrong.

You now claim no Department, I guess you mean Cabinet head had their own email. You are wrong.

Bush Administration EPA head.

Christine Todd Whitman: [e-mail], [e-mail]

All things considered about conservatives and the EPA this looks suspicious looks like it was all the rage during the Bush years everyone who was anyone at EPA seem to use private email.


Christine Todd Whitman: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Marianne Lamont Horinko: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Michael Leavitt: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Stephen L. Johnson: [e-mail], [e-mail]

Colin Powell: I Used Private Email To Contact Staff, Ambassadors, Foreign Ministers. In his book, It Worked For Me: In Life And Leadership, Powell wrote that during his tenure at the State Department during the Bush administration, he used a personal email account and a private laptop computer to contact staff, ambassadors, and foreign ministers. From his book:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/06/29/conservatives-push-false-claim-that-clintons-us/204185

[Uncle Joe]

124. E-mail is not the same as "server." n/t

[Todays_Illusion]

125. Thanks for the dissembling topic move. You said email separate from Benghazi, wrong. You said no

Cabinet level official had ever previously used private email/server.

Two wrongs from you so time to move the topic again.

[SoapBox]

39. Yup.

"...but since Clinton's PAC's and supporters will inevitably fabricate a narrative about Sanders..."

Her Entrenched Establishment Crowd is already trying...and her skeezy SuperPAC ilk has also tried...and I expect more to come...but...

Try as they might, his brilliant campaign will strike down the lies and false claims. Team Bernie has already harnessed the massive power of social media and the net...that cat is way out of the bag, so to speak.

So bring it Hillionaires...bring your lies and memes...they will be struck down....and each attack will get Bernie even MORE in donations.

[Zorra]

52. Heh.

I imagine Wikileaks would probably make the really good ones public about two weeks before the Democratic National Convention.

[Catherina]

58. Heh, I hope so. And just now "FBI director confirming inquiry into Clinton email setup"

FBI director confirming inquiry into Clinton email setup

Tucker?|?AP October 1 at 2:57 PM

WASHINGTON — FBI Director James Comey confirmed Thursday the FBI is looking into the security of the setup of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s email and that the agency has the appropriate “resources and personnel assigned to this matter.”

In a wide-ranging conversation with reporters on Thursday, Comey acknowledged for the first time the existence of the FBI inquiry. But he declined to discuss details of the investigation and would not answer questions about when the inquiry might end or exactly what steps the FBI is taking as part of its review.

The FBI this summer took possession of the private email server that Clinton used as secretary of state, after receiving a referral from the intelligence community about the possible exposure of classified information. The controversy has dogged Clinton’s presidential campaign. Neither the campaign nor Clinton’s lawyer has discussed the inquiry, but both have said they’re cooperating.

...

He said he believes the FBI has “the resources and personnel assigned to this matter” to complete it in a timely way and that he is being regularly briefed on it.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/fbi-director-confirming-inquiry-into-clinton-email-setup/2015/10/01/a14d1a2a-6869-11e5-bdb6-6861f4521205_story.html

[pinebox]

54. Politico has the story too

Seeing as how some want to dismiss the author of the article, let's try Politico shall we!?

Snowden: No way Hillary’s private server was secure
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/edward-snowden-hillary-clinton-personal-server-email-213312

Edward Snowden blasted Hillary Clinton's assertion that her State Department emails were secure on a private server, calling the notion "completely ridiculous" in excerpts of an interview with Al Jazeera English published Thursday.

“This is a problem because anyone who has the clearances that the Secretary of State has, or the director of any top level agency has, knows how classified information should be handled," the former NSA contractor who leaked thousands of classified national-security documents said in an interview with the network's "UpFront" program.

Snowden continued his blistering criticism of the former secretary of state and current Democratic front-runner, concluding that if a typical employee at the State Department or the Central Intelligence Agency "were sending details about the security of embassies which is alleged to be in her email, meetings with private government officials, foreign government officials and the statements that were made to them in confidence over unclassified email systems, they would not only lose their jobs and lose their clearance, they would very likely face prosecution for it.”

“When the unclassified systems of the United States government, which has a full-time information security staff regularly gets hacked, the idea that someone keeping a private server in the renovated bathroom of a server farm in Colorado, is more secure is completely ridiculous," Snowden said, referring to the physical location of the server hosted by Denver-based Platte River Networks.

[randome]

55. Doesn't matter. It's still just Snowden's opinion.

The guy who didn't understand what a secure FTP server was. The guy who said he could get the President's email if he wanted -but never did. He's hardly the 'go-to' guy for IT.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[think4yourself]

63. This from the person

who spent months telling everyone "it's only metadata" they're collecting.

I'll side with Snowden on this one, too.

[randome]

113. It IS only metadata they're collecting -in America.

Outside our shores, they get everything they can get their hands on. Want to change that? Go ahead, I'm fine with it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[AzDar]

57. Bernie will win a landslide victory because Hillary sucks and he is fucking amazing...

[Catherina]

60. Yep! Landslide

[AtomicKitten]

64. Kicked and highly recommended. <nt>

[Capn Sunshine]

74. NO ONE in government's emails are secure. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous

isn't that pretty obvious?

I'm not a big Snowden guy , as he was responsible for outing hundreds of covert operatives, many who gave up their lives or freedom because of the collateral damage of Snowden's revelations.

If he gave a shit about anyone except Edward Snowden, he would have handled things differently.

[jeff47]

76. How Team Clinton botched the security on her server

What we know so far:

1) Communications with her server were not encrypted for the first 3 months.
https://www.venafi.com/blog/post/what-venafi-trustnet-tells-us-about-the-clinton-email-server/

2) They left the default VPN keys installed on her server
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-04/clinton-s-e-mail-system-built-for-privacy-though-not-security

Using those addresses, McGeorge discovered that the certificate appearing on the site Tuesday appeared to be the factory default for the security appliance, made by Fortinet Inc., running the service.

3) They were using, and continue to use, self-signed SSL certificates
http://gawker.com/how-unsafe-was-hillary-clintons-secret-staff-email-syst-1689393042

4) They set up a .com domain, enabling the typosquater who has registered clintonmail.com (no "e" before "mail&quot . Whoever registered that domain is in a perfect position to steal login information or perform spear phishing attacks.

5) Her ISP was repeatedly hacked by China
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=615632

[Catherina]

88. Hacked by Romania too. GGucifer

Additionally, her server had no enterprise-level security filters or proxies- an absolute minimum.

Then there's the matter of her security team. Anyone who doesn't know how to properly delete emails, is in no way qualified to secure a server, especially an old server that was just sitting around in the basement. And then the stuff's going back and forth between her server to her smartphone and laptop? Did the same incompetents *secure* those?

And who are these people at Platte River Networks? Medoubts they had any clearances lol.

Clinton's unusual email system was originally set up by a staffer during Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign. It replaced another private server used by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

The new server was run by Bryan Pagliano, who had worked as the IT director on Hillary Clinton's campaign before joining the State Department in May 2009. In 2013 — the same year she left the State Department — Clinton hired a small Denver-based IT firm named Platte River Networks to oversee the system.

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-bremmer-obama-administration-officials-2015-8

[BlueStateLib]

102. Thats not how clintonmail.com server was setup, was not for Group Access

Blackberry tunneling uses password authentication not certificates,
Preshared keys and certificates or mainly for group use (when) connecting
multiple networks via VPN, Clinton used singal remote VPN Client

Of the 86 people who used clintonmail.com, the number of user accounts on
the server was 1 so no one else would of had the need to log on through the SSL
web page authentication and Clintons Blackberry password authentication was
hardwired and would of been no need to login via SSL web.

Self signed SSL Certificates also encrypt customers' log in and other personal account
credentials, but will prompt most web servers to display a security alert when web
page is accesses. SSL Certificates verify web page integrity from spoofing, (fake web
page to capture login authentication).

Outgoing Mail: Blackberry tunneling VPN Client > Wireless Network > Internet > Fortigate VPN Client > Blackberry Enterprise Server > Email Server > SSL SMPT Outgoing > Internet

Incoming Mail: State SMPT SSL Mail Server > Internet > Blackberry Enterprise Server > POP Incoming > Fortigate VPN Client > Internet > Wireless Network > remote Blackberry tunneling VPN Client

[jeff47]

114. You should pay a little more attention to your own post

Of the 86 people who used clintonmail.com, the number of user accounts on
the server was 1 so no one else would of had the need to log on through the SSL
web page authentication

Because you absolutely have to turn on a web server. With SSL. You can't possibly run a server without that when no one is using it.

SSL Certificates verify web page integrity from spoofing, (fake web page to capture login authentication).

Self-signed certificates do not do this. That is the point. You need a "real" SSL certificate to prevent MITM attacks.

Also, take a closer look at your supposedly secure flows. Both of them involve self-signed SSL certs and the VPN appliance that had the default VPN keys installed.

[Thinkingabout]

80. Snowden has proven himself a thief and hack, he must think it is his right to steal information,

He is a terrible fan for anyone to have. He is proof of a good reason why he needs to be in prison.

[shenmue]

91. Yep

I don't make friends with thieves.

[WI_DEM]

82. If something catastrophic happens to Clinton the pressure will be on Biden

to run.

[moobu2]

90. Yeah, Bernie Sanders wont be the nominee no matter what happens

If Hillary falls, Bidden will get the nomination and we will lose and get a Republican president but we wont lose by as much as we would if Bernie Sanders was the nominee.

It's either Hillary Clinton or whoever their nominee is. Bernie Sanders is just another George McGovern loser.

[Scootaloo]

129. Biden's not going to run.

And Clinton's not going to take the convention home.

[sabrina 1]

99. People don't like her policies, it's that simple. She's a war hawk, and it's even worse than I

thought, she views war as a 'business opportunity'.

On almost every issue over the past several decades she has taken the 'conservative position' and the way she talks about the people who are impacted by these conservative positions, is offensive.

My support for Bernie is purely based on the issues. He has an outstanding, consistent record on the important issues, she doesn't, it's that simple.

As for the email debacle, it has nothing to do with why I do not support her.

[moobu2]

131. People dont like her policies? lol She's the front runner.

[kelliekat44]

101. Traitor Ed on record saying the e-mails were not safe. I ask was her server hacked? Safer than

the State Department's servers and the WH e-mails, obviously. Just stop with this asinine hit job on Hillary. There are many more important issues concerning the Dem candidates than this GOP-driven "scandal."

[Baltimore18]

112. Completely agree. There's no evidence she was hacked, unlike the State Department.

[BillZBubb]

127. Hero Ed is correct. Her emails were not safe. He is correct, but it really isn't a big deal.

Nobody's email is safe. That is a big deal.