Clintonemail.com

[JohnR]

So I have been catching snippets of the problems with her running her own server and knew as soon as I heard about it that it would be bad. Just a very bad situation coming from an IT guy, littered with possible security complications.

So today I saw a link and started reading about it deeper. This is pretty bad and almost assuredly several foreign intelligence services have been reading "our" mail.

This is (#&*$ing bad.

Read and weep. If you are in IT get your head shakes and WTFs out of the way before hand.

http://gawker.com/how-unsafe-was-hil...st-1689393042#

[Guppy]

I hate her

[Raven]

despicable wench

[Fishpart]

PRISON..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[iamskippy]

I think it funny.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Some experts don't seem as worried.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...omain-security

We'll see what she has to say this week. I think the Clinton strategy is to give the story some time to boil over and mend it as it fades away.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Some experts don't seem as worried.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...omain-security

We'll see what she has to say this week. I think the Clinton strategy is to give the story some time to boil over and mend it as it fades away.

In other words, when she knowingly and deliberately breaks rules that others are supposed to follow, her strategy is to put her fingers in her ears until people stop asking what she was thinking. So much for the "most open and transparent administration ever" that a certain megalomaniac promised us. Clinton and Lois Lerner sur etake some liberties when it comes to archiving emails...

War on Women!

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by JohnR

So I have been catching snippets of the problems with her running her own server and knew as soon as I heard about it that it would be bad. Just a very bad situation coming from an IT guy, littered with possible security complications.

So today I saw a link and started reading about it deeper. This is pretty bad and almost assuredly several foreign intelligence services have been reading "our" mail.

This is (#&*$ing bad.

Read and weep. If you are in IT get your head shakes and WTFs out of the way before hand.

http://gawker.com/how-unsafe-was-hil...st-1689393042#

I'm with you....what was she thinking. countless security issues with doing that.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I'm with you....what was she thinking. countless security issues with doing that.

Clearly she wanted to control what stayed hiddenn and what the public she claims to serve, got to see. That's not her choice to make.

I thought I heard last night that 100% of the emails she composed as Secstate were on her personal server. She didn't use her official email account once? Not once?

Huge story.

[spence]

If you want to control what stays hidden you don't use email at all.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

If you want to control what stays hidden you don't use email at all.

thanks Yogi Bera

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

thanks Yogi Bera

Well, it's pretty simple isn't it? If your intent was to obfuscate wouldn't you go off the grid completely?

She's going to clear this up this afternoon it sounds like.

[DZ]

She screwed up big time. At the very least she should have done this:

While it may be necessary to use private e-mail for official business under emergency circumstances (e.g. when official email is not available), it is imperative that those e-mails become part of the official record. In this situation, the easiest way to accomplish this is to simply "cc" your work e-mail on any work correspondence sent from your private e-mail. Also, it is 100% inappropriate and against regulations and policy to send any FOUO, PII or other sensitive but unclassified data via a personal email account. This data must be sent on an official email system and digitally signed and encrypted.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, it's pretty simple isn't it? If your intent was to obfuscate wouldn't you go off the grid completely?

You mean as in having hundredsof personal face to face conversations, even with those several miles away? Seriously? Are you saying that it is not possible to obfuscate on the grid?

She's going to clear this up this afternoon it sounds like.

Or expand the obfuscation.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

She's going to clear this up this afternoon it sounds like.

"I did NOT have textual relations with that email"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

If you want to control what stays hidden you don't use email at all.

Then why did she break the rules? Why use a personal server instead of the State Dept server? And how come she never divulged this fact on her own, not until the media broke the story? All the Benghazi hearings, she never thought it was relevent that not of her emails were accessible to the State Dept?

Please...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

?

She's going to clear this up this afternoon it sounds like.

Oh, I see. So when a politician addresses a scandal for the first time, it's "cleared up" in your mind. So the first time Chris Christie said he had no involvement in the bridge scandal, as far as you were concerned, it was all cleared up?

[Jim in CT]

I see, she says not to worry, she just used a personal server for the sheer convenience. Therefore, there's nothing to see. As long as it was convenient for her, no story there.

It would be very convenient for me, if I never paid taxes again. Can I use that as justification to cheat on my taxes?

Good God, almighty...

[spence]

Hate carrying two phones, I can empathize with that.

She makes a valid point though. Nothing was illegal, if it was work related it would have been captured on other .gov servers anyway. If she really wanted to hide something it would have been worth using multiple phones and using an anonymous account.

Now we can get back to the US Senate working to enable Iranian hardliners

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Hate carrying two phones, I can empathize with that.

She makes a valid point though. Nothing was illegal, if it was work related it would have been captured on other .gov servers anyway. If she really wanted to hide something it would have been worth using multiple phones and using an anonymous account.

Now we can get back to the US Senate working to enable Iranian hardliners

Wonder how many phones Bill has?
By the way I love your sarcasm Spence👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Now we can get back to the US Senate working to enable Iranian hardliners

We're supposed to think Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, doesn't represent the "hardliners"? Hasn't the Iranian government been the hardliner all along? Do you think they would let the negotiators freewheel? If he denounces the US Senates letter, how is that letter enabling the hardliners? It seems the Iranian "liners" want to make the deal--that it gets them what they want. The letter doesn't enable them, it gives them fair warning that they should make a deal that can't be broken. And one which prevents them from getting the bomb. And gee, isn't that what they want anyway? They don't want the bomb, right? So it would seem that all parties, the Obama admin., the Iranian "liners," the Senate, all have the same objective. What's the special enabling? Are you saying the Senators want Iran to get the bomb?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Are you saying the Senators want Iran to get the bomb?

If the Senators don't want the deal and no deal is more likely to get them a bomb, then that could be a possible conclusion. Perhaps their hate for all things Obama is clouding their judgement.

[buckman]

I have multiple email accounts on one phone .... Am I missing something ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I'm with you....what was she thinking. countless security issues with doing that.

And it was not the first server. They are running Exchange 2010 which was not available when first setup. Something else was running before - Exh 03 ? 07? Any gov IT guy would be fired.

[PaulS]

I'm sure the NSA has copies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Only the emails they intercepted for her correspondence with foreign. nationals. Those are backed up.

[justplugit]

Being she won't reveal her private server but always tells the truth,
'"that should clear things up", Spence.

[detbuch]

COLOR="Blue"][/COLOR]

Originally Posted by spence

If the Senators don't want the deal and no deal is more likely to get them a bomb,

I don't know about THE deal, but, apparently they want A deal. Though I don't know why. Even the Obama administration has said that Iran has consistently failed to meet its obligations.

Deals with tyrannical regimes which recognize only their own power as legitimate are historically proven to be unreliable. Actually, they will most assuredly be broken when it suits the tyrants. Why bother? ANY deal can remove U.N. sanctions on Iran and enable them to join Russia's and China's broad anti-Western alliances, giving them a strong shield against any military threat from us. Even a shield against further U.N. sanctions if they choose to openly work to getting the bomb. Which, in my estimation, is why Iran would be willing to sign on to a deal. We don't seem to have been paying serious attention to the shifting alliances that are taking place, and at a faster pace in picking up prospective members as they progress. In the next few years, we may well see our power and influence in international affairs shrink. And I believe Iran is hoping to align with those who will wield the greater power. And there is little we can do about it, outside of going to war sooner rather than later. At the very least, we should be building military power than can match or surpass their collective power.

and no deal is more likely to get them a bomb,

Confusing. You cited the Zakaria article as arguing that there would be no gain for Iran in getting the bomb, implying that they, as they have been saying all along, don't intend to. Yet here you say that no deal makes it more likely that they will get the bomb. So trying to get the bomb is a ploy to get a deal? That is not logical since one situation negates the other. If they want a deal, they shouldn't be trying to get the bomb. If they want the bomb, what is the value of a deal?

On the other hand, getting a deal could make it easier for them to get the bomb.

then that [the senators want Iran to get the bomb]could be a possible conclusion.

In the vast realm of possible conclusions, that would be one of the most unlikely. Actually it's silly, and that you try it makes you appear to be grasping at straws.

Anyway, getting a deal could eventually make it easier for Iran to openly get the bomb. A deal could lift the sanctions and allow Iran to join the expanding Russia/China coalitions.

Perhaps their hate for all things Obama is clouding their judgement.

Has this hate been documented as hate? Or is this the typical fall-back meme when you got nothing else? And the implication that the Obama regime does not have clouded judgment is very suspect.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't know about THE deal, but, apparently they want A deal. Though I don't know why. Even the Obama administration has said that Iran has consistently failed to meet its obligations.

Deals with tyrannical regimes which recognize only their own power as legitimate are historically proven to be unreliable. Actually, they will most assuredly be broken when it suits the tyrants. Why bother? ANY deal can remove U.N. sanctions on Iran and enable them to join Russia's and China's broad anti-Western alliances, giving them a strong shield against any military threat from us. Even a shield against further U.N. sanctions if they choose to openly work to getting the bomb. Which, in my estimation, is why Iran would be willing to sign on to a deal. We don't seem to have been paying serious attention to the shifting alliances that are taking place, and at a faster pace in picking up prospective members as they progress. In the next few years, we may well see our power and influence in international affairs shrink. And I believe Iran is hoping to align with those who will wield the greater power. And there is little we can do about it, outside of going to war sooner rather than later. At the very least, we should be building military power than can match or surpass their collective power.

There certainly is a mega shift in global power but I wouldn't have faith that a BRIC alliance is going to mean a dramatic reduction in US power. It's mostly economic and dependent on global consumption.

Mexico, Germany, Poland, Turkey all all likely to grow over the coming decades.

There also doesn't seem to be agreement on what Iran really is doing. The former head of Mossad called Bibi's claims before Congress to be b*llsh*t. Even our own intel agencies haven't consistently said there's an active program to develop a bomb going on.

With aggressive inspection I'd say we're better prepared to know what's real even with attempts to deceive. Saddam 2.0.

Confusing. You cited the Zakaria article as arguing that there would be no gain for Iran in getting the bomb, implying that they, as they have been saying all along, don't intend to. Yet here you say that no deal makes it more likely that they will get the bomb. So trying to get the bomb is a ploy to get a deal? That is not logical since one situation negates the other. If they want a deal, they shouldn't be trying to get the bomb. If they want the bomb, what is the value of a deal?

With no deal they have no respite from sanctions, the natural response will be escalate and provoke to get the deal. This leads to a bomb.

In the vast realm of possible conclusions, that would be one of the most unlikely. Actually it's silly, and that you try it makes you appear to be grasping at straws.

No, it simply follows the clear logic set forth above.

Anyway, getting a deal could eventually make it easier for Iran to openly get the bomb. A deal could lift the sanctions and allow Iran to join the expanding Russia/China coalitions.

In the vast realm of possible conclusions, that would be one of the most unlikely. Actually it's silly, and that you try it makes you appear to be grasping at straws.

Has this hate been documented as hate? Or is this the typical fall-back meme when you got nothing else? And the implication that the Obama regime does not have clouded judgment is very suspect.

Given the short-sighted behavior -- now being regretted by their own party -- I wonder why they would do such a silly thing. That it comes on the heels of Bibi's surreal appearance is even more strange.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Being she won't reveal her private server but always tells the truth,
'"that should clear things up", Spence.

LMAO. Spot on.