FBI report: Hillarys emails...worse than we thought

[GMDino]

(02-02-2016, 05:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So I am not allowed to point out the fallacies in your logic when discussing this issue with you?  Pointing out that you are wrong is somehow "deflecting"?


This is getting ridiculous.

You should know that pointing out " inability to know the meanings of different words is a tactic" that is NOT tolerated in these discussions.  

[Belsnickel]

(02-02-2016, 05:26 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Why does it matter?  Govt IT does not monitor her private server, issue #1.  Information on her private server is "outside" FOIA requests, relying on her cooperation and compliance, issue #2.

However there were no rules against using her private email at the time, as has been brought up previously on this issue. I agree that she should not have used her private email, but that doesn't mean she was in the wrong according to the law or policy by doing so.

[fredtoast]

(02-02-2016, 05:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.vox.com/2016/1/29/10873106/hillary-clinton-email-top-secret

Thanks for the link.

This clearly explains how Hillary could have received "classified" information without realizing that it was "classified", and how "stupidity" could have zero to do with it.

[GMDino]

(02-02-2016, 05:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: However there were no rules against using her private email at the time, as has been brought up previously on this issue. I agree that she should not have used her private email, but that doesn't mean she was in the wrong according to the law or policy by doing so.

The second link I just posted says the same EXCEPT she was not / should not have used her private account "exclusively".

[Belsnickel]

(02-02-2016, 05:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because Hillary chose to use her personal email as her official email; in the example provided the assistant had no choice but to send it to her personal email. 

I am not a cyber-security expert, but I will say no spillage would have occurred if anything is sent and received on the same server. The only issue would be that you sent information to someone that did not have the permissions to read it.

I'm not either, I'm just going by what our security folks tell us to do and why to do it. There are a lot of unknowns here that I am curious about.

(02-02-2016, 05:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm just a lowly HR Supervisor and I have all my official mail set to encrypt automatically.  

Encrypting email messages doesn't solve the issue that I am presenting, though, since the issue is not with interception of the email which is what email encryption is really about.

[McC]

You would have to think that no matter what happens, her chances of ever being elected have to be slim.

People don't tend to run out and vote for candidates up to their necks in FBI investigations.

She'll still get the votes she would always have gotten but those alone will not be enough.

Th biggest problem I have with her is that, basically, her entire career is based on marrying a guy who later became President. I see no positive evidence of her abilities anywhere.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-02-2016, 04:31 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Of course not.  She had her state-issued smartphone and could presumably log into a secure server remotely, as well.  The issue is she set-up her own server with her own email address to handle things.

So people would need to correspond with her non-departmental email address.  Now, there is supposed to be a separate, secure server for classified emails.  But that doesn't prevent someone from scanning or typing the contents into an email from a non-secure server to send.

Why are you asking the question?  Does it matter?  Are you attempting to contend there were no classified emails on her server and the FBI and State Dept are just full of it?

I'm asking because there should be some sort of protocol to protect sensitive information. Including sensitive information should be encrypted and not sent in the clear. Even her private email should be secured in case she accidentally clicked on the email from her Nigerian uncle with the Trojan virus. If unencrypted emails with sensitive info were sent and stored on an unsecured server then you have a systemic problem that goes beyond someone just being stupid. Why would she use an unsecured email?  And why is an unsecured server even an option?  Someone shouldn't be scanning or typing info from secured emails and sending them in unsecured emails. 

[Belsnickel]

(02-02-2016, 05:42 PM)McC Wrote: You would have to think that no matter what happens, her chances of ever being elected have to be slim.

People don't tend to run out and vote for candidates up to their necks in FBI investigations.

She'll still get the votes she would always have gotten but those alone will not be enough.

Th biggest problem I have with her is that, basically, her entire career is based on marrying a guy who later became President. I see no positive evidence of her abilities anywhere.

The problem I have is that there is nowhere to go this year. For those that aren't party loyalists really have nothing to draw them to either side. We'll see the winners (unless Sanders win, I don't see him doing this) scramble towards the middle for the general election but I think the rhetoric being espoused will continue to scare off a lot of folks even when they start backpedaling.

[*bfine32*]

(02-02-2016, 05:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So I am not allowed to point out the fallacies in your logic when discussing this issue with you?  Pointing out that you are wrong is somehow "deflecting"?


This is getting ridiculous.

Point out what ever you like. What fallacy has been employed? I used the word stupid and told you to use any word you choose. Somehow in Fred logic that became me not understanding how changing words changes meaning

You are correct about the ridiculous part.

[*bfine32*]

(02-02-2016, 05:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Thanks for the link.

This clearly explains how Hillary could have received "classified" information without realizing that it was "classified", and how "stupidity" could have zero to do with it.

Sure could. But of course stupidity could have had everything to do with it

[*bfine32*]

(02-02-2016, 05:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not either, I'm just going by what our security folks tell us to do and why to do it. There are a lot of unknowns here that I am curious about.


Encrypting email messages doesn't solve the issue that I am presenting, though, since the issue is not with interception of the email which is what email encryption is really about.

Of course it is good practice to follow what your IT folks tell you.

What is known is that Hillary chose not to have a separate official email address. She has even admitted this may not have been wise or gasp stupid.

[McC]

(02-02-2016, 05:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem I have is that there is nowhere to go this year. For those that aren't party loyalists really have nothing to draw them to either side. We'll see the winners (unless Sanders win, I don't see him doing this) scramble towards the middle for the general election but I think the rhetoric being espoused will continue to scare off a lot of folks even when they start backpedaling.

One could almost sense that the Democrats are throwing the election.  These two can't be the best and brightest of the party, can they?

[Belsnickel]

(02-02-2016, 07:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What is known is that Hillary chose not to have a separate official email address. She has even admitted this may not have been wise or gasp stupid.

Indeed, it was definitely an unwise decision. Not unprecedented or against policy, but unwise.

[fredtoast]

(02-02-2016, 06:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But of course stupidity could have had everything to do with it

Maybe, but it is amazing how many people are 100% convinced of this without knowing any facts other than "IT WAS A DEMOCRAT!!!!"

Sadly that is all some people need to know in order to make their judgments.

[GMDino]

(02-02-2016, 08:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Maybe, but it is amazing how many people are 100% convinced of this without knowing any facts other than "IT WAS A DEMOCRAT!!!!"

Sadly that is all some people need to know in order to make their judgments.

Well...Benghazi.

[McC]

It seems sloppy, at the very least. Not a good quality in a cabinet member. Terrible quality in a chief executive.

There must be things she did right. Anybody know a few of these? What is her list of accomplishments?

[*bfine32*]

(02-02-2016, 08:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Maybe, but it is amazing how many people are 100% convinced of this without knowing any facts other than "IT WAS A DEMOCRAT!!!!"

Sadly that is all some people need to know in order to make their judgments.

I will say I am convinced she received, forwarded, and sent classified emails from her home server. Are you?

But I will say effective use of the caps lock feature. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-02-2016, 08:52 PM)McC Wrote: It seems sloppy, at the very least.  Not a good quality in a cabinet member.  Terrible quality in a chief executive.  

There must be things she did right.  Anybody know a few of these?  What is her list of accomplishments?

Well, even before she was SOS she was dodging sniper fire in Bosnia. 

That's got to count for something.

[*bfine32*]

It appears John Kerry was one of her Pen pals:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kerry-used-private-email-send-clinton-now-classified-222700568--politics.html

WTS, I have no idea how something could be considered Secret 4 years later, but may not have been so when it was first issued. That seems totally backwards.

[Vlad]

(02-02-2016, 08:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Maybe, but it is amazing how many people are 100% convinced of this without knowing any facts other than "IT WAS A DEMOCRAT!!!!"

Sadly that is all some people need to know in order to make their judgments.

Um ...this is not at all like Lois Lerner and the IRS targeting Conservative Republicans. The FBI doesn't care what party that piece of shit Hillary belongs to.