Hillary Clinton

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by magwell

If that server is wiped clean

Looks like more word games from the Clintons. The FBI has the server and it has been wiped clean. As I read this story, the Clintons gave the FBI the server that Hillary used while Secy of State. That server had been replaced in 2013, and it appears that whatever was on it at the time was transfered onto a new server. It is not clear where the new server is located or who did the transfer or if the old emails are still on it.

The FBI has taken possession of the personal e-mail server used by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state, according to a published report.

Barbara Wells, an attorney for Denver-based computer services firm Platte River Networks, told The Washington Post that federal agents picked up the server from a private data center in New Jersey Wednesday afternoon. The attorney told the paper that the server "was blank" and no longer contained useful information.

"The information had been migrated over to a different server for purposes of transition," Wells told the paper. "To my knowledge the data on the old server is not available now on any servers or devices in Platte River Network’s control." Wells added that the company had cooperated with the FBI and had been told it was not a target of the investigation.


The Post reported that Platte River Networks had been hired by former President Bill and Hillary Clinton to upgrade their private e-mail network in June 2013, after Hillary Clinton had left the State Department. As part of the job, the old server was taken from the basement of the Clintons' Chappaqua, N.Y. home and moved to the New Jersey data center.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...-email-server/

[fast4522]

I think Edward Snowden and Dot Kim have something to say soon, I watched a video with Dot Kim saying something to that effect. on youtube.

[Robert Goren]

Is there any reason to believe that the State Dept. servers were any more safe than Clinton's personal server? I think that anybody who really wanted to read State Dept. emails would be able to. I am sure places like Russia have no trouble getting them.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

Is there any reason to believe that the State Dept. servers were any more safe than Clinton's personal server? I think that anybody who really wanted to read State Dept. emails would be able to. I am sure places like Russia have no trouble getting them.

Not the point.
She lied and then destroyed evidence in a cover up.
We know she got a tremendous amount of money donated from foreign entities. And YOU whined because Romney legally deposited his money off shore. We KNOW she mishandled Top Secret material. A sailor recently was arrested and faces 20 years for taking a selfie with some battleship equipment in the background. Hillary is either grossly incompetent or lying and committing treason.

Kerry himself said his email were probably being read.
Duh. So why is he still using it?

[davew]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

Is there any reason to believe that the State Dept. servers were any more safe than Clinton's personal server? I think that anybody who really wanted to read State Dept. emails would be able to. I am sure places like Russia have no trouble getting them.

Is there any reason to believe that CIA documents sent to her with the designation TOP SECRET which was later removed by someone in the Clinton camp is not a felony?

[FocusWiz]

Originally Posted by davew

Is there any reason to believe that CIA documents sent to her with the designation TOP SECRET which was later removed by someone in the Clinton camp is not a felony?

There may be room for the typical obfuscation of the issue by politicians (which is practiced especially well by the Clintons).

Most security policies govern the handling of this information by putting the onus on the sender not to send this information to a personal email account. In other words, if I work for a major corporation or for the government, I will likely be forbidden to forward secure information to my home email account and may need to get proper authorization to send such information to a vendor or a client.

In other words, the onus would not be on the recipient to avoid receiving this information, but on the sender to avoid sending it.

Thus, if confidential information were sent to Hillary's personal email account on her personal server, she could argue that it was the sender who violated policy and the law and that she, knowing that some individuals might erroneously send classified information to her personal email account, used extra security measures there to ensure that if that occurred, the data would be protected, and that the removal of this data was done to ensure that the data would no longer be available if the server's security was in any way compromised.

I am not saying that I agree with this "explanation" just that it seems to me the most likely way they would argue that she did nothing wrong.

[davew]

Originally Posted by FocusWiz

There may be room for the typical obfuscation of the issue by politicians (which is practiced especially well by the Clintons).

Most security policies govern the handling of this information by putting the onus on the sender not to send this information to a personal email account. In other words, if I work for a major corporation or for the government, I will likely be forbidden to forward secure information to my home email account and may need to get proper authorization to send such information to a vendor or a client.

In other words, the onus would not be on the recipient to avoid receiving this information, but on the sender to avoid sending it.

Thus, if confidential information were sent to Hillary's personal email account on her personal server, she could argue that it was the sender who violated policy and the law and that she, knowing that some individuals might erroneously send classified information to her personal email account, used extra security measures there to ensure that if that occurred, the data would be protected, and that the removal of this data was done to ensure that the data would no longer be available if the server's security was in any way compromised.

I am not saying that I agree with this "explanation" just that it seems to me the most likely way they would argue that she did nothing wrong.

and if she forwarded these to foreign people, companies and governments in exchange for donations to the Clinton foundation then she would not be a spy committing treason?

what if the reason she got them is because one of her aides in the state department forwarded them to her from the state department?

[Tom]

Why would anyone send them to her personal email unless SHE gave it to them?

[FocusWiz]

Originally Posted by davew

and if she forwarded these to foreign people, companies and governments in exchange for donations to the Clinton foundation then she would not be a spy committing treason?

what if the reason she got them is because one of her aides in the state department forwarded them to her from the state department?

I said nothing about her sending confidential information in my post.

I suspect that even sending classified information to other members of our own government from an unsecured server could be at least a breach of security if not a violation of the law. The specific question I was responding to was regarding whether or not there was any reason to believe that CIA documents sent to her with the designation TOP SECRET which was later removed by someone in the Clinton camp is not a felony. Receiving these things probably should have been reported immediately by Hillary but sending them to an external email address by the sender is the punishable crime in my opinion.

[FocusWiz]

Originally Posted by Tom

Why would anyone send them to her personal email unless SHE gave it to them?

I get emails from people all the time that I do not respond to. I am sure you do too.

When I worked for an organization that was highly concerned with data security, we had training sessions constantly regarding what to do if some colleague asked you to send information to their personal email address or some outsider asked for information on behalf of someone else.

The answer was always the same. We were never to send any email containing confidential information to an outside server unless the recipient of that email (i.e., the email address) was approved by the head of data security. The mere request had to be reported to data security. This often applied to internal email addresses too. There are pieces of information that are known by one part of the organization which are not to be shared outside of that group without proper authorization, no matter who asks for it. In fact, our servers were set up such that if it caught specific words in attachments or was unable to decrypt an attachment, those attachments would be removed from the email. Similarly, if certain words were caught in the body of the emails, those emails were also blocked. In these scenarios, reports of potential violations would be sent to your management and you would have to explain what was being sent and/or the context of the words used and you could potentially have the email released or possibly be released yourself.

Hillary could have asked me all she wanted, but unless I had a signed authorization to send her such information to her external email address from the head of data security, she would not get anything. However, if I got such approval, it would not just protect me from further action, but her as well. At that point, the person whose job would have been at stake would have been the head of data security.

That is how it works in large organizations like the government.

[delayjf]

Is there any reason to believe that the State Dept. servers were any more safe than Clinton's personal server?

I don't know about the State Dept. but the military has classified networks that classified material can be transmitted thru- called the SIPERNET. I would think the State Dept would have something simular.

[ebcorde]

There ain't no way in Hell this lady has all these "Scandals" all laughable. oh I read what they claim she did. so someone sent her an e-mail about a News story written about a drone... oh whoopee do. oh my my.

and no one cares about their dumb drone program!!!!!!! Everyone in the world knows the US will never resolve the middle east , except the US. The stupid Generals are on plan #1,001. And I have family in Afghanistan right now in upper management in MI. I don't receive any info. I'm just using my commonsense IT'S A LOST CAUSE.

But Let's go back to scandal #1 whitewater and her murder of Vince Foster. A Bunch of baloney than and now. People don't forget these accusations

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Tom

Why would anyone send them to her personal email unless SHE gave it to them?

There were no options. Hillary used only one personal email address (HDR22@clintonemail.com) for all of her official State Department business. All her emails came from that address. She did not have a State Department email address.

From the NY Times:

According to a report published by The New York Times Monday night, Hillary Clinton exclusively used personal email while acting as Secretary of State, a possible violation of federal record-keeping laws.

The newspaper says Clinton never had a government email address during the four years she served as head of the State Department and aides made no attempt to archive her emails as required by the Federal Records Act, behavior experts found troubling.

http://gawker.com/report-hillary-cli...sec-1689075741

[ebcorde]

the problem with this country the last 30 years are the idiots in congress. they're the problem.

to sum it up. A DAY LATE A DOLLAR SHORT on everything. democrats, republicans., tea party, they're 99% losers.

[zico20]

Just read that the State Department is not helping the investigation. Gee, I guess not. The article states that numerous State Department employees who knew about her using her personal account could be in trouble legally.

http://observer.com/2015/08/breaking...intons-emails/