quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
I had a computer years ago. One day the hard drive took a dump. I went to Fry's, picked out a new one, came home and plugged it in, loaded in a system from CD, IIRC, and it was like it ever even happened. The old drive is long gone, never to be seen again.

Why wouldn't this be a easy, quick, cheap and fool proof solution?

Destroying and disposing of the hard drive(s) would have been the most fool proof method, but it seems laziness/sloppyness was a major factor in how Hellary's emails and server were handled. Hopefully they were lazy enough to not completely shred the info on the drives.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Yet to be determined, she said, is “whether information in those emails should have been classified in the first place.”

This was inevitable, and is usually the first defense of someone who mishandled classified material: “Oh, everything’s over-classified; I’ve seen classified dinner menus. Although we’re not going to discuss these specific items, it wasn’t really classified or even that sensitive.”

Yeah, what was the name of the "patriot" who leaked secret info to the media, and then got away with it because some jackass judge decided it should not have been classified.

When I was in service, and when I carried a TSC crypto in civilian life as well, only the person who actually classified the info in the first place could reclassify if.

All this crap about security violations is beside the point. She violated federal laws by using the private server to conduct state department business. What more is there to discuss? Should be classified material issue be considered when filing charges? Absolutely, but we all know that the odds of her prosecution vary from slim to none.

quote:

Yeah, what was the name of the "patriot" who leaked secret info to the media, and then got away with it because some jackass judge decided it should not have been classified.

'Leaky' Leahy comes to mind.

State Dept info security just sucks

From the Annual Report to Congress: Federal Information Security Management Act February 2015

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sit...eport_02_27_2015.pdf

Strong Authentication is at 72 % over all federal agencies. (requires users to log-on to networks with unique Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards)

State Dept: 100,000 unprivileged users Strong Authentication 0%

State Dept: 5,000 privileged users Strong Authentication 0%

Privileged user accounts possess elevated levels of access to or control of Federal systems and information, significantly increasing the risk to Government resources if their credentials are compromised

Percentage of remote access connections that prohibit split tunneling and/or dual connected remote hosts where the laptop has two active connections:
75% all agencies State Dept 0%

Percentage of remote access connections that scan for malware upon connection: State Dept 0 %

Percentage of email traffic that is on systems that have the capability to digitally sign email (when sending messages): State Dept 0 %


Percentage of email traffic that is on systems that have FIPS 140-2 Encryption of Email (when sending messages): State Dept 0 %


Total Agency scores:
GSA 99%
DoJ 99%
DHS 98%
...
Dept of State 42%
HHS 35%
HUD 19%

quote:

She violated federal laws by using the private server to conduct state department business. What more is there to discuss? Should be classified material issue be considered when filing charges? Absolutely, but we all know that the odds of her prosecution vary from slim to none.

^^^^^+1

Prosecution is very unlikely in the matter of her using an unsecured server, in my opinion, because her enablers in the Whitehouse and State would be caught up in the trial, etc.

But, the Chinese Water Torture of drip, drip, drip, of negative information is going to put paid to her candidacy.

I remember the Clintons only too well. Question to Bill C. under oath:
Did you do “A”?
WJC Answer:
I don’t believe you will find any evidence that I did “A”.

I suspect that “Bill & Hill” have covered their tracks so well that real hard evidence will never be found.

EO 13526 states that while individual pieces of unclassified material may each be unclassified, the compilation of that material in one place or associated together may be classified. So in Hillarys case, I would think that there is likely many many cases where the compilation of emails and attachments could be classified. So it isn't just a matter of looking at each email by itself.

One way or another she is guilty of a serious security violation.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:
EO 13526 states that while individual pieces of unclassified material may each be unclassified, the compilation of that material in one place or associated together may be classified. So in Hillarys case, I would think that there is likely many many cases where the compilation of emails and attachments could be classified. So it isn't just a matter of looking at each email by itself.

One way or another she is guilty of a serious security violation.

That doesn't get us were we need to go. That the bulk, being greater than the sum of the parts, should be classified only leads us towards the poor wisdom in choosing to have a private server. It highlights a weakness in the federal records act, but doesn't provide an actionable charge of wrong doing.

However, if material that was classified at the time it was sent can be found among the 31,000 emails she didn't delete, or a copy of an email she did delete that is official business can be found, then a violation of the law for controlling classified material can be shown.

If you take 2 pieces of unclass info and put them into an email, and by having them together the combination is classified, that is a security violation.

It will be investigated and depending on the circumstances you would be punished.

quote:

Originally posted by domcintosh:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:
EO 13526 states that while individual pieces of unclassified material may each be unclassified, the compilation of that material in one place or associated together may be classified. So in Hillarys case, I would think that there is likely many many cases where the compilation of emails and attachments could be classified. So it isn't just a matter of looking at each email by itself.

One way or another she is guilty of a serious security violation.

That doesn't get us were we need to go. That the bulk, being greater than the sum of the parts, should be classified only leads us towards the poor wisdom in choosing to have a private server. It highlights a weakness in the federal records act, but doesn't provide an actionable charge of wrong doing.

However, if material that was classified at the time it was sent can be found among the 31,000 emails she didn't delete, or a copy of an email she did delete that is official business can be found, then a violation of the law for controlling classified material can be shown.

Maybe you are right. But just as an example:

1 Hillary sends an email to someone saying that she is going to send them some imagery re: their discussion the previous week. - UNC

2 And a week earlier these same two exchanged emails talking about something interesting in Syria developing. - UNC

3 Then Hillary sends satellite imagery a week later showing what looks to be some military camps. - UNC

Taken together those 3 emails could be classified for whatever reason. That is not only poor judgement but probably should be a security violation. The fact she is stupid isn't an excuse. IMO. Hillary has classification authority, is a subject matter expert, and would know these items together are classified. Should she go to Club Fed? I dunno but she should never again hold a clearance - which could be a problem for a Presidential candidate.

These are criminals not merely incompetent people.

Like the Secretary of State didn't have any resources so she went to Fries and kluged together an email server.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer: Should she go to Club Fed? I dunno but she should never again hold a clearance - which could be a problem for a Presidential candidate.

On the contrary, being able to pass a background is not a requirement to be president.

Mind blowing.

Even if this amounts to nothing that sticks criminally it should so clearly illustrate her lack of good judgement as to disqualify her for any future position of influence in the mind of any reasonable person. Then again, any reasonable person would have come to that conclusion long before now.....

"Moving further down the ladder of corruption into pure sleaze, we have, as always, Bill Clinton's insatiable sexual appetite. We haven't heard much about this in the mainstream press since the days of "bimbo eruptions" and Monica Lewinsky. And that's fair, right? Bill is out of office, his days of public service behind him. Why is it anyone's business what the ex-president does in his free time?

The only problem is that his wife is running for president, and if the effort is successful, Bill and his libido will be back in the White House. Should that be a problem? Maybe not — though it sure could be a humiliating embarrassment and distraction for the first female commander-in-chief.

But what concerns me far more is a specific story — one about Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire investor with a taste for sex with underage prostitutes. Lots of them. Perhaps as many as "34 confirmed minors." (Epstein pled guilty to state charges in 2008. He was sentenced to 18 months and released after serving 13.)

Flight logs from Epstein's private jet — nicknamed the "Lolita Express" — show at least 10 trips by Bill Clinton, including several on which he flew (according to Gawker) with "a woman who federal prosecutors believe procured underage girls to sexually service Epstein and his friends and acted as a 'potential co-conspirator' in his crimes."

Tick, boom."

Old Bill is still alive and kicking..

If I'm a billionaire convicted felon with a known knack for little girls, "Lolita Express" would be the last thing I'd name my jet.. "Driving Miss Daisy" would be a little better.

the server she turned over was professionally wiped?

that that happened by accident?

shouldn't that be considered destroying evidence in a federal investigation?

shouldn't she be wearing orange by now?

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
the server she turned over was professionally wiped?

It had to be wiped since it's illegal to transfer classified information.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
the server she turned over was professionally wiped?

that that happened by accident?

shouldn't that be considered destroying evidence in a federal investigation?

shouldn't she be wearing orange by now?

Any retired/repurposed email server should be wiped if there was anything private at all on it, even of a strictly personal nature, so that in-and-of itself isn't unusual. Of course, it's evident Hellary had motivation well beyond protecting personal information.

quote:

On the contrary, being able to pass a background is not a requirement to be president.
Mind blowing.

Not only that, but we have no way of "vetting" candidates for President.
There is no background check of any kind, we don't even ask for a birth certificate or any ID to determine that the basic Constitutional requirements for the office are fulfilled. Obviously, this is/was an issue with Barack Obama, in my opinion an issue that was never resolved.

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

We leave it all up to public opinion.
Pathetic.

The people that wiped it were probably not a govt approved, for all she knows, they could have copied everything on it, and could be selling it to China, bet if the FBI stepped on them, they would sing like birds.

quote:

Originally posted by nighthawk:
The people that wiped it were probably not a govt approved, for all she knows, they could have copied everything on it, and could be selling it to China, bet if the FBI stepped on them, they would sing like birds.

Little to no doubt they were not approved to dispose of electronically stored, classified info. But of course, we know there was no classified info on Hellary's server, because she said so.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

On the contrary, being able to pass a background is not a requirement to be president.
Mind blowing.

Not only that, but we have no way of "vetting" candidates for President.
There is no background check of any kind, we don't even ask for a birth certificate or any ID to determine that the basic Constitutional requirements for the office are fulfilled. Obviously, this is/was an issue with Barack Obama, in my opinion an issue that was never resolved.

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

We leave it all up to public opinion.
Pathetic.

it's an unfortunate situation where, for instance, many argue that the Constitution is right regarding "shall not be infringed" on one hand yet on the other lament the imperfections inherent in the Presidential qualifications. both need fixing by way of Amendment, and neither will anytime soon - if ever, so we're stuck with a frustratingly-near-perfect Constitution.