The Hillary Clinton thread

Zekester · Post by **Zekester** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 7:59 pm

Moliere wrote:White House says Clinton did not heed e-mail policy

“Very specific guidance has been given to agencies all across the government, which is specifically that employees in the Obama administration should use their official e-mail accounts when they’re conducting official government business,” Earnest said. “However, when there are situations where personal e-mail accounts are used, it is important for those records to be preserved, consistent with the Federal Records Act.”

Earnest said the administration would have to rely on Clinton’s assurances that she met the fallback requirement of sending along the pertinent e-mails to be archived.
Has anyone started calling this Emailgate yet?

We're not allowed to, or we'll be called names.

Zekester · Post by **Zekester** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:00 pm

Rip wrote:Plus she has lots of experience running an e-mail server.

from home no less!

damn, she is good.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:19 pm

Zekester wrote:She's a seasoned politician alright...just like Bill. Seasoned liars. But to be fair, most politicians are anyway.

The reset button attempt was an embarrassment, and seriously put a dent in her perceived effectiveness at foreign policy.

She also towed the Obama line a bit too much to think that she may not be as far left as him.

I disagree on the reset, but that's a matter of opinion. It didn't work out, but I admire her for trying. Oh well. I understand if people think this was a failing. Ok.

She was remarkably loyal to the one person who stole her presidency (imo), without compromising herself. That alone is a plus in my book. She has shown that she personally isn't far from center on numerous occasions.

Again, I'm not saying she should be the next president, I'm just trying to be objective while understanding that she will be closer to my own opinions than most of the Republicans.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:20 pm

Defiant wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
hepcat wrote:I'm not a big fan of the Clinton family (Rip, pick your jaw up off the floor) so my vote was already decided, but I'm surprised to find out that there are more than a few folks in Washington using private mail for what appears to be sensitive information. Hopefully these recent revelations will cause them to step up their game.
The best part is that email isn't even encrypted. It's literally clear text over the internet. Putting sensitive information in it is insane for anyone, but a national government? Craziness.
Depends on the system. There are encrypted email services.

Of course, but these are not the default, nor are they common, yet. Thanks to Snowden, they are becoming a lot more common.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:22 pm

hepcat wrote:We need fresh blood in the Oval Office, not another Bush or Clinton.

You got an Obama and 8 years of more partisan stonewalling than I recall in my lifetime. I do hope the next non-bush/clinton does better, but that's not always up to the president.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:29 pm

Rip wrote:Plus she has lots of experience running an e-mail server.

She has plenty of faults. The question was what were her qualifications. More accurately, the question was does she have *any* qualifications. The answer is clearly yes.

I completely disagree on using private email for government business, and if you recall, I supported your position with regard to the IRS email debacle.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:44 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Zekester wrote:She's a seasoned politician alright...just like Bill. Seasoned liars. But to be fair, most politicians are anyway.

The reset button attempt was an embarrassment, and seriously put a dent in her perceived effectiveness at foreign policy.

She also towed the Obama line a bit too much to think that she may not be as far left as him.
I disagree on the reset, but that's a matter of opinion. It didn't work out, but I admire her for trying. Oh well. I understand if people think this was a failing. Ok.

She was remarkably loyal to the one person who stole her presidency (imo), without compromising herself. That alone is a plus in my book. She has shown that she personally isn't far from center on numerous occasions.

Again, I'm not saying she should be the next president, I'm just trying to be objective while understanding that she will be closer to my own opinions than most of the Republicans.

Hold on to that feeling.Pretty sure you will be back here saying that about Obama's Iran peace deal in a few years when it comes to preventing Iran from getting a nuc or in changing their aggressive behavior. If she becomes POTUS Clinton will have a dozen of them as well. Must be nice to have supporters that gloss over your failures with"well at least they were trying".

Do or do not. To try is to fail.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:44 pm

GreenGoo wrote:She was remarkably loyal to the one person who stole her presidency (imo), without compromising herself.

Stole her presidency? How does that even make any sense? She lost the Democratic nomination in 2008 fair and square. She made up some ground in the end, but her terrible campaign in the early months left her with a delegate deficit after Super Tuesday and the Potomac Primaries that was insurmountable.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:55 pm

Judicial Watch submitted its original FOIA request on August 27, 2014. The State Department was required by law to respond by September 26, 2014 at the latest to Judicial Watch’s request for:

Any and all records of communication between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Nagla Mahmoud, wife of ousted Egyptian president Muhammad Morsi, from January 21, 2009 to January 31, 2013; and
Any and all records of communication between former State Department Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin and Nagla Mahmoud from January 21, 2009 to January 31, 2013.
To date, the State Department has not responded.

Ms. Mahmoud threatened Mrs. Clinton after Morsi was ousted. According to JihadWatch.org:

In the words of El-Mogaz News, Morsi’s wife “is threatening to expose the special relationship between her husband and Hillary Clinton, after the latter attacked the ousted [president], calling him a simpleton who was unfit for the presidency. Sources close to Nagla confirmed that she has threatened to publish the letters exchanged between Morsi and Hillary.”

The report continues by saying that Nagla accuses Hillary of denouncing her former close ally, the Brotherhood’s Morsi, in an effort to foster better relations with his successor, Egypt’s current president, Sisi—even though, as Nagla laments, “he [Morsi] was faithful to the American administration.”

“Now we know why the State Department didn’t want to respond to our specific request for Hillary Clinton’s and Huma Abedin’s communications,” stated Tom Fitton. “The State Department violated FOIA law rather than admit that it couldn’t and wouldn’t search the secret accounts that the agency has known about for years. This lawsuit shows how the latest Obama administration cover-up isn’t just about domestic politics but has significant foreign policy implications.”

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room ... pt-emails/

Zekester · Post by **Zekester** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:27 pm

I do believe, though, that she would show more balls than Obama on mostly any issue.

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 1:05 am

GreenGoo wrote:
The best part is that email isn't even encrypted. It's literally clear text over the internet. Putting sensitive information in it is insane for anyone, but a national government? Craziness.

I'm not going to argue that her using a private email address isn't bullshit and probably insecure, but this statement isn't really accurate. Virtually every modern email system will use opportunistic TLS to encrypt SMTP as it is sent. That's not to say that attackers couldn't circumvent this, but your statement that it is literally clear text is incorrect.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 12:39 pm

Hillary’s State Dept. Forced The Resignation Of An Ambassador For Using Private E-Mail

Although Hillary Clinton and her allies may be claiming that her private e-mail system is no big deal, Hillary’s State Department actually forced the 2012 resignation of the U.S. ambassador to Kenya in part for setting up an unsanctioned private e-mail system. According to a 2012 report from the State Department’s inspector general, former U.S. ambassador to Kenya Scott Gration set up a private e-mail system for his office in 2011.

The inspector general’s report offered a scathing assessment of Gration’s information security practices — practices that are eerily similar to those undertaken by Clinton while she served as Secretary of State

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 12:55 pm

Honestly, the guy sounds very obnoxious and it sounds like the department had warned him to stop. I don't think anyone claimed that Clinton was warned at all against what she was doing.

To date, neither she nor her team have released any e-mails that she sent or received while serving as U.S. Secretary of State.

Ehh? I thought they had released tens of thousands of pages worth of emails.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:15 pm

Defiant wrote:Honestly, the guy sounds very obnoxious and it sounds like the department had warned him to stop. I don't think anyone claimed that Clinton was warned at all against what she was doing.

To date, neither she nor her team have released any e-mails that she sent or received while serving as U.S. Secretary of State.
Ehh? I thought they had released tens of thousands of pages worth of emails.

State Department technology experts expressed security concerns that then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was using a private email service rather than the government’s fortified and monitored system, but those fears fell on deaf ears, a current employee on the department’s cybersecurity team told Al Jazeera America on Tuesday.

The employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job, said it was well known that Clinton’s emails were at greater risk of being hacked, intercepted or monitored, but the warnings were ignored.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2 ... l-use.html

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:18 pm

“We tried,” the employee said. “We told people in her office that it wasn’t a good idea. They were so uninterested that I doubt the secretary was ever informed.”

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:26 pm

Defiant wrote:
“We tried,” the employee said. “We told people in her office that it wasn’t a good idea. They were so uninterested that I doubt the secretary was ever informed.”

Showing she learned one thing from Obama. Make sure your people know not to tell you about anything bad/negative so you can easily claim you didn't know. Which in the liberal world is a positive.

Of course we know she knows doing that is bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DCwmYHr-_M

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:32 pm

Whereas with Republican malfeasance, you just claim to have no recollection of those events taking place.

Spare us the partisan BS. Politicians are shifty on both sides, and you damned well know it.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:35 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:Whereas with Republican malfeasance, you just claim to have no recollection of those events taking place.

Spare us the partisan BS. Politicians are shifty on both sides, and you damned well know it.

Funny I never hear you saying that when we are discussing something the Republicans have done wrong.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:37 pm

You must have missed his posts in gun control threads then.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:37 pm

Rip wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:Whereas with Republican malfeasance, you just claim to have no recollection of those events taking place.

Spare us the partisan BS. Politicians are shifty on both sides, and you damned well know it.
Funny I never hear you saying that when we are discussing something the Republicans have done wrong.

So you're saying you have no recollection of those events taking place?

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:40 pm

gbasden wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
The best part is that email isn't even encrypted. It's literally clear text over the internet. Putting sensitive information in it is insane for anyone, but a national government? Craziness.
I'm not going to argue that her using a private email address isn't bullshit and probably insecure, but this statement isn't really accurate. Virtually every modern email system will use opportunistic TLS to encrypt SMTP as it is sent. That's not to say that attackers couldn't circumvent this, but your statement that it is literally clear text is incorrect.

I disagree. And even if some systems are configured to encrypt, it drops back down to clear text when the email exits the server's trust network.

And that's not even considering the fact that ISP's have been caught tampering with users' requests for encrypted email (machine side). ISPs in the US and Thailand have pulled the encryption flag despite the user requesting encryption. When that happens, hello clear text. Worse, the user still thinks his email is encrypted.

It's clear text. How often? More often than not. But you're correct, email is now encrypted more often than in the past, which was never, by default. Snowden is helping us along in this area too. Thanks Snowden.

I would almost guarantee that everyone on these forums who are not tech savvy or VERY security conscious are sending their emails in clear text.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:44 pm

hepcat wrote:You must have missed his posts in gun control threads then.

You will have to be more specific.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:44 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:
Rip wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:Whereas with Republican malfeasance, you just claim to have no recollection of those events taking place.

Spare us the partisan BS. Politicians are shifty on both sides, and you damned well know it.
Funny I never hear you saying that when we are discussing something the Republicans have done wrong.
So you're saying you have no recollection of those events taking place?

I'm saying it wasn't in my daily briefing.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:46 pm

Rip wrote:
hepcat wrote:You must have missed his posts in gun control threads then.
You will have to be more specific.

I'm saying Issie isn't quite as partisan as you claim.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:49 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:
Rip wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:Whereas with Republican malfeasance, you just claim to have no recollection of those events taking place.

Spare us the partisan BS. Politicians are shifty on both sides, and you damned well know it.
Funny I never hear you saying that when we are discussing something the Republicans have done wrong.
So you're saying you have no recollection of those events taking place?

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:49 pm

hepcat wrote:
Rip wrote:
hepcat wrote:You must have missed his posts in gun control threads then.
You will have to be more specific.
I'm saying Issie isn't quite as partisan as you claim.

I didn't say he was. What I said was when a Republican is being bashed for malfeasance I have never heard him tell anyone "Spare us the partisan BS. Politicians are shifty on both sides, and you damned well know it.".

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:50 pm

hepcat wrote:
Rip wrote:
hepcat wrote:You must have missed his posts in gun control threads then.
You will have to be more specific.
I'm saying Issie isn't quite as partisan as you claim.

Doesn't he live in Texas? I thought it was a state law to carry a weapon at all times.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:50 pm

Rip wrote:
hepcat wrote:
Rip wrote:
hepcat wrote:You must have missed his posts in gun control threads then.
You will have to be more specific.
I'm saying Issie isn't quite as partisan as you claim.
I didn't say he was. What I said was when a Republican is being bashed for malfeasance I have never heard him tell anyone "Spare us the partisan BS. Politicians are shifty on both sides, and you damned well know it.".

Just because he hasn't used that exact phrase doesn't mean he hasn't expressed the same sentiment.

Moliere wrote: Doesn't he live in Texas? I thought it was a state law to carry a weapon at all times.

No, but it is Texas, so it's just a good idea.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:55 pm

hepcat wrote:
Rip wrote:
hepcat wrote:
Rip wrote:
hepcat wrote:You must have missed his posts in gun control threads then.
You will have to be more specific.
I'm saying Issie isn't quite as partisan as you claim.
I didn't say he was. What I said was when a Republican is being bashed for malfeasance I have never heard him tell anyone "Spare us the partisan BS. Politicians are shifty on both sides, and you damned well know it.".
Just because he hasn't used that exact phrase doesn't mean he hasn't expressed the same sentiment.

Moliere wrote: Doesn't he live in Texas? I thought it was a state law to carry a weapon at all times.
No, but it is Texas, so it's just a good idea.

I don't recall seeing the same sentiment either. Feel free to post me a link to it.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:57 pm

I'm not going to spend more than one minute on trying to prove something to you. Feel free to declare yourself one of life's winners.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:59 pm

hepcat wrote:I'm not going to spend more than one minute on trying to prove something to you. Feel free to declare yourself one of life's winners.

NP, I will file it under unsubstantiated claims.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:00 pm

Make sure it sits next to your folder marked "pictures of 10,000 Iranian protestors denouncing America".

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:00 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:
Rip wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:Whereas with Republican malfeasance, you just claim to have no recollection of those events taking place.

Spare us the partisan BS. Politicians are shifty on both sides, and you damned well know it.
Funny I never hear you saying that when we are discussing something the Republicans have done wrong.
So you're saying you have no recollection of those events taking place?

Maybe his people knew not to tell him.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:04 pm

There are the repeated mentions I've made about the "you can keep your plan" line being complete political bullshit from the moment I heard it. I called that out in 2010 and 2013 (Pages 10 and 33-44 of the full-court press thread). And I did it all without making it about the party of the person who said it.

Hillary's e-mail nonsense is certainly worthy of criticism. I'm not going to waste a bit of breath on defending the actions. But to sit there and try and lay it at her feet as business as usual because of her party is ludicrous, and you know it.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:09 pm

Rip wrote:
Defiant wrote:
“We tried,” the employee said. “We told people in her office that it wasn’t a good idea. They were so uninterested that I doubt the secretary was ever informed.”
Showing she learned one thing from Obama. Make sure your people know not to tell you about anything bad/negative so you can easily claim you didn't know. Which in the liberal world is a positive.

Of course we know she knows doing that is bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DCwmYHr-_M

Or that the people she worked for probably weren't able to comprehend the scope of the security risks. Just like most people

Her actions definitely imply that she was trying to keep the emails under her control, in case there was a need for it. But I'm less sure that she understood the security risks.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:10 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:There are the repeated mentions I've made about the "you can keep your plan" line being complete political bullshit from the moment I heard it. I called that out in 2010 and 2013 (Pages 10 and 33-44 of the full-court press thread). And I did it all without making it about the party of the person who said it.

Hillary's e-mail nonsense is certainly worthy of criticism. I'm not going to waste a bit of breath on defending the actions. But to sit there and try and lay it at her feet as business as usual because of her party is ludicrous, and you know it.

I didn't make it about the party. I made it about Hillary doing the same thing Obama does, which is to always claim they didn't know anything about pretty much every illegal thing done by their administration/people. It is an Obama/Clinton thing. Certainly not the entire Democratic party. Many of them like Warren I may not agree with but they operate in a respectable, open, and fair manner.

Just wait until all those e-mails between Clinton via Huma and Morsi come out. I will go ahead and predict now that Obama will claim he didn't know anything about what was being discussed.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:13 pm

Meh, I tend to think of plausible deniability as more of a typical politician thing, regardless of party. We've certainly seen Republicans capable of it, especially those in the top office.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:14 pm

Rip wrote:I didn't make it about the party.

So you have no recollection of typing the following words in the past that started this tangent?

Which in the liberal world is a positive.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:18 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:
Rip wrote:I didn't make it about the party.
So you have no recollection of typing the following words in the past that started this tangent?

Which in the liberal world is a positive.

Apparently it is at least here. All I see is people defending it and trying to spin it as fuss over nothing. I am simply doing the polar opposite of what you guys (and Hillary as noted by the video) do. If it was Cheney with the secret e-mail account it would be decried here as evidence of a vast right wing conspiracy.

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:23 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
gbasden wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
The best part is that email isn't even encrypted. It's literally clear text over the internet. Putting sensitive information in it is insane for anyone, but a national government? Craziness.
I'm not going to argue that her using a private email address isn't bullshit and probably insecure, but this statement isn't really accurate. Virtually every modern email system will use opportunistic TLS to encrypt SMTP as it is sent. That's not to say that attackers couldn't circumvent this, but your statement that it is literally clear text is incorrect.
I disagree. And even if some systems are configured to encrypt, it drops back down to clear text when the email exits the server's trust network.

And that's not even considering the fact that ISP's have been caught tampering with users' requests for encrypted email (machine side). ISPs in the US and Thailand have pulled the encryption flag despite the user requesting encryption. When that happens, hello clear text. Worse, the user still thinks his email is encrypted.

It's clear text. How often? More often than not. But you're correct, email is now encrypted more often than in the past, which was never, by default. Snowden is helping us along in this area too. Thanks Snowden.

I would almost guarantee that everyone on these forums who are not tech savvy or VERY security conscious are sending their emails in clear text.

I monitor email leaving a State Government agency that services tens of thousands of people. They have defined TLS for a handful of agencies, but depend on opportunistic TLS for most of their in-transit encryption. I can see the percentage of the time that the email is encrypted, and it's almost always over 99%. I don't understand your comment about the server's trust network either - opportunistic TLS doesn't require *any* trust network. As long as the receiving server has a cert and will support the protocol, the sending server will encrypt. And what does Snowden have to do with anything? Servers have been encrypting outbound SMTP for 10 years now, at least. If you argue that mail at rest is vulnerable, that is a different story.

Sure, it's certainly possible for ISPs to not honor that, and again, I think she was clearly in the wrong. She should have been using hardened systems. But I don't see the patterns you claim on the traffic I oversee.