Clinton to hand over email server to FBI

[Jhhnn]

It is not automatically more secure or vulnerable.

Much depends on the quality of people setting it up and maintaining it.

Is it a IT security professional or just a campaign staffer that dickers around with computers?

A staffer was the person that changed it over for Hillary. Who set it up for Bill, I have not heard.

Then they hand over the server to a company that is not authorized for handing classified info. And turn over a thumb drive to a lawyer containing classified info.

The haphazard handling of info coupled with the lack of security (physical attitude and informational) raises serious red flags.

You merely cast aspersions based on lack of evidence & determinations made after the fact.

If you want to understand the ridiculous catch22 headset about classified information, read this-

http://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2013/06/dod-classified/

It reaches absurd depths when discussion of a news article about drone strikes is deemed "classified" & that disclosure is part of what the muckrakers wanted divulged in the first place.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...server-contain-information-public-domain.html

If we think about it at all, there is no higher authority than the SoS (other than the President) in the determination of what's classified & what isn't.

And if we rub a few more grey cells together, we realize that any classified information Hillary deleted wouldn't have been available to the slime artists other than by accidental breach of security, anyway. Anything actually deleted from all systems is no longer a security liability in any sense, as well.

Begin with a quest for what you know to be unobtainium, finish by whining piously about where the unobtainium has been kept. Pretend it meant anything in the first place, other than as an attack vector.

It's the same kind of framing used in every faux scandal during the Obama presidency & others before, all the way back to Bert Lance.

Irrational thought patterns induced by propaganda need constant refreshment & reinforcement with the introduction of new elements to entertain the rubes, new verses in the song. The chorus is always the same.

 

[Bowfinger]

• At this point, why should ANYONE take Clinton's word for ANYTHING? She's literally the boss of the organization responsible for investigating these types of issues, is it really a surprise they just said, "well she said it's clean, so it's clean!".

So you acknowledge you don't have facts here, just biased supposition.

• I am not arguing if it was ALLOWED. I am arguing that if it was determined to be a mistake after the fact, a reasonable person will acknowledge the situation, take responsibility, and once it's been understood what the problem was and made very clear what steps would be taken in the future life goes on. That's it! No lynch mobs and pitch forks, just recognition of a mistake (which is fucking human) and moving on. This is my problem with this whole situation in a nutshell. ...

Perhaps, but you're starting with the presumption that the propaganda is true. Clinton has acknowledged that in retrospect, it was a mistake. She doesn't seem to agree it was nearly as big a deal as her attackers claim.

• She was asked to turn over the current server without making any changes. The current server was handed over wiped. Nobody gives a shit about some server from three years ago that was upgraded, that's just smoke and mirror bullshit intended to give people like you who are either too stupid or too oblivious to the technicals of the situation an easily digestible answer. This is my primary source of anxiety and concern that she is not being honest.

I strongly suspect that's another one of your "facts" that is wrong. Please cite the actual order (or a similarly credible source) showing Clinton was asked to turn over the server she uses today. My guess is she was asked to turn over the server she used while Secretary of State, and that is reportedly exactly what she did. If the FBI wants her current server too, I can't imagine they'll be shy about requesting it.

Re. "people like you who are too stupid or too oblivious ...," blow me. From my perspective, you're yet another simpleton who's been duped by yet another nutter smear campaign.

I'm not a Clinton fan at all, but I hate dishonest smear campaigns -- and the defectives who fall for them -- even more. These faux scandals kill any hope of honest discussion about the underlying issue, and are invariably a huge duhversion from things that actually matter. They are an empty distraction for the sheeple, designed to keep us fighting each other instead of focusing on substantive issues.

I'm a digital forensics expert for the department of defense so I can tell you right now the answer is bullshit.

That's the beauty of the Internet. Anyone can claim to be anything.

 

[Virge_]

Did she or did she not hand over documents or emails that she felt were work related? She did in fact hand over documents that were work related (50,000 in fact). Were they handed over in the normal fashion? No, they were printed and not digital copies. Is that illegal? No, in fact it is not illegal.

With regards to turning over her server do you know why she was asked to do so? You apparently don't.

This.. is.. a stupid fucking question.

She was not responsible to hand over documents or emails she "felt were work related". She was responsible for handing over the entire server pursuant to a judges order with the authority of Title 18.

Why do you keep trying to twist the argument into something else? Are you a paid shill for Hillary?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Federal Records Act wasn't in effect when she was in office.

Wrong. It was enacted in 1950 and the sections I quoted were last amended in 1984.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2008-title44/pdf/USCODE-2008-title44-chap31-sec3105.pdf

 

[fskimospy]

Who gives a shit? The FRA request is for her current e-mail server, which she fucking deleted before turning over!

I just need to figure out why you can't seem to grasp such simple concepts and why you say something so blatantly deceptive and irrelevant. You either do not understand on a fundamental level, are brainwashed too badly, or are an outright shill trying to deceive people on her behalf.

The parts cited directly reference the responsibilities of the heads of federal agencies. She was not the head of any federal agency when the law went into effect, therefore it doesn't apply to her.

It's a pretty simple concept, and the fact that you think by stating obvious facts people are trying to deceive you probably says more about where you are coming from than it does about me.

 

[Virge_]

A bunch of words, some of which were reasonable.

So you believe the fundamental difference is that I inherently distrust anything I hear? With the behavior of the current political system, with all-time low ratings for favorability in congress and a shitty election system where we don't even get to vote on a candidate until the green party has decided who runs, why exactly would it be reasonable or logical to be otherwise?

 

[fskimospy]

Wrong. It was enacted in 1950 and the sections I quoted were last amended in 1984.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2008-title44/pdf/USCODE-2008-title44-chap31-sec3105.pdf

You're right, I misread what you wrote. According to what we know she has preserved the official documents, but wiped all personal contents. That is the part that was changed in 2014 and did not apply to her.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...heck-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law

The law was amended in late 2014 to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days. But that was after Clinton left office. Watchdog groups conceded that she may not have violated the text of the law, but they argue she violated the spirit of it. The Sunlight Foundation's John Wonderlich explained to Horsley:

 

[Virge_]

Double post..

 

[ivwshane]

Unsurprisingly you are lying again. She stated that she never sent classified emails. That is a totally different claim than saying the server had no classified info on them. Do you understand the difference?

As I already explained, during Clinton's post as Secretary of State, record retentions was already up to the individual as opposed to now where record retention is done automatically.

She thought that her status would protect her and that she did not have to comply with the records act.

To comply fully, would also reveal private correspondence which she apparently did not want to do.

By turning over to State the records that SHE FELT were applicable, it forces trusting of her judgement.

She claims that there was no classified info on the server; that has been turned out to be false.

Did she not understand what classified means and the rules for handling such?

Did she not understand what the judge stated - turn over everything and DO NOT DESTROY anything !!!
She was not told that she could filter out info.
She also should not have had a private company destroy the old server.
And did Platte transfer info from the old server to the new one?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The parts cited directly reference the responsibilities of the heads of federal agencies. She was not the head of any federal agency when the law went into effect, therefore it doesn't apply to her.

It's a pretty simple concept, and the fact that you think by stating obvious facts people are trying to deceive you probably says more about where you are coming from than it does about me.

I'm confused. Are you saying that the State Department in not a federal agency? That Hillary was not the head of the State Department? Or that the law enacted in 1950 and amended in 1984 somehow doesn't apply to her? Please clarify.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm confused. Are you saying that the State Department in not a federal agency? That Hillary was not the head of the State Department? Or that the law enacted in 1950 and amended in 1984 somehow does apply to her? Please clarify.

Read my other posts, in particular the NPR fact check on the Federal Records Act.

That should provide all the clarity you need, I assume. No violations found.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You're right, I misread what you wrote. According to what we know she has preserved the official documents, but wiped all personal contents. That is the part that was changed in 2014 and did not apply to her.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...heck-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law

Doesn't matter whether she copied the emails or not....she destroyed government records which is a clear violation of the law imo. There is no corollary which states it's OK to destroy government records...but only if you copy them first.

 

[Bowfinger]

So you believe the fundamental difference is that I inherently distrust anything I hear? With the behavior of the current political system, with all-time low ratings for favorability in congress and a shitty election system where we don't even get to vote on a candidate until the green party has decided who runs, why exactly would it be reasonable or logical to be otherwise?

No, we share that trait. I also distrust anything I hear, especially from politicians -- and Hillary is the consummate politician. The difference between us is that I don't present my suspicions as fact. The difference between us is that I recognize the smear campaign is coming from other politicians and their proxies, and that their accusations should not be trusted either. That's why I look for whatever facts I can find that either come from more objective sources, or at least can be corroborated with factual evidence.

For example, you have repeatedly asserted Clinton was asked to turn over her current server. You've offered nothing to support that assertion, however. Do you have a factual basis for it, or is it just supposition on your part? It makes a huge difference to your argument.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Read my other posts, in particular the NPR fact check on the Federal Records Act.

That should provide all the clarity you need, I assume. No violations found.

Please quote where the NPR article directly addresses the point I've made.

 

[Hugo Drax]

So why did she just not hand over the server untouched from the beginning? It would have saved here all this innuendo.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So why did she just not hand over the server untouched from the beginning? It would have saved here all this innuendo.

And therein lies the rub.

 

[Virge_]

So why did she just not hand over the server untouched from the beginning? It would have saved here all this innuendo.

Because she had various things to cover up.

When the judge specifically told her she could remove things that were personal, there is simply no other reasonable explanation.

 

[fskimospy]

Please quote where the NPR article directly addresses the point I've made.

Already gave you all the info you need. Are you saying that you have used your independent legal experience to come to a dramatically different conclusion than the lawyers used for that article? If so, what basis do you have for this?

 

[Cozarkian]

Unsurprisingly you are lying again. She stated that she never sent classified emails. That is a totally different claim than saying the server had no classified info on them. Do you understand the difference?

Okay, so she provided deceptive information as to the classified nature of documents on the server by making technically true statements while omitting closely related material information. That is generally considered lying by omission.

Are you honestly defending that behavior?

 

[Virge_]

For example, you have repeatedly asserted Clinton was asked to turn over her current server. You've offered nothing to support that assertion, however. Do you have a factual basis for it, or is it just supposition on your part? It makes a huge difference to your argument.

This is a valid statement, and I cannot seem to locate any official evidence which stipulates one way or the other. Do you have anything which shows it was the "old" server?

For the record, when I stated that this appears to be technical nuance - it's because from what I have read there seems to be some debate as to how to handle a physical piece of property which was upgraded, when the upgrade in question was a full wipe.

I do DoD digital forensics. One thing I encounter often is that the political system has a very poor understanding of technology, and that things are often applied in ways that would make sense for a paper record medium, but for which do not apply so readily to electronic data. The conundrum appears to come from the fact that to the government, a computer that has been wiped, upgraded, or re-purposed is still considered, functionally, to now simultaneously perform both the object of it's original purpose AND the new object. This gets pretty confusing because now you're applying a set of rules to the OLD purpose which is no longer reasonable in practice, not to mention impossible to audit.

With that said, this particular nuance is exceptionally well known to justice staffers, so if this investigation was an actual thing and not a dog and pony show that would have been one of the first pieces of empirical evidence used to support why she CANNOT turn over the server - and the Judge would have acknowledged the scenario as an unreasonable request and either recalled it or adjusted it accordingly.

With all that said, what concerns me is that the information which has been disclosed on this case does not line up to the way the processes have been established and performed for many years. It all smells very strange and there is no readily identifiable reason as to why either party is taking the actions they are taking - which simply asks more questions than it answers, in truth. This is where my frustration comes from - I see technical nuance with established modern precedence not only being ignored, but outright disregarded in this one particular case.

If that doesn't set off red alarms, what does?

 

[holden j caufield]

I'm not up to date at all on this but why would she have a need for this? Why run your own server, go get a domain, configure mx, configure backup, maintenance etc. That's a lot of hassle.

Why would another official believe it was her email. If I got an email from hclinton at hilaryclinton.us or whatever I'd never respond.

 

[bshole]

I personally think she is fucked, completely and utterly fucked. This looks really really bad for her. I am perplexed as to what started all of this in the first place. What put people on to her personal server initially? Do they do this with all exiting Secratary of States?

 

[Virge_]

I'm not up to date at all on this but why would she have a need for this? Why run your own server, go get a domain, configure mx, configure backup, maintenance etc. That's a lot of hassle.

Why would another official believe it was her email. If I got an email from hclinton at hilaryclinton.us or whatever I'd never respond.

From a technical perspective there are many reasons why I would also run my own e-mail server. For the record, I DO run my own e-mail server. I do not want to speak for Hillary, but mine is for privacy and control.

Regardless, the issue at hand is not her running a private e-mail server - it is her conducting government business using the e-mail address(es) it hosts.

I personally think she is fucked, completely and utterly fucked. This looks really really bad for her. I am perplexed as to what started all of this in the first place. What put people on to her personal server initially? Do they do this with all exiting Secratary of States?

I agree with you. I think she's fucked. Sadly I think this all could have been easily avoided by her just saying, "I made a mistake based on advice from XXX. I will comply to get it solved moving forward".

Since it appears to me currently she's getting a free pass for her position and her last name, I have serious issues with this entire process. Had she just owned up to it I would have applauded her integrity and the world would have moved on.

To me, this all boils down to a lack of trust and transparency. It just keeps getting worse and worse the more I get the impression we're being lied to outright.

 

[Blackjack200]

Replace "Bad Hillary lady" with "ivwshane" for all of the above. Does the scenario play out the same as it does today, or are you bunking next door to Chelsea Manning?

The fact that you're so sadly oblivious to the privilege this traitor has is simply sickening.

You're out of your fucking mind. Go read up on Iran-Contra, Watergate, or COINTELPRO, and see what a real scandal is.

Or link me to all your flipping out and conniption fits when the Bush Administration did the same goddamn thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_e-mail_controversy

 

[Blackjack200]

I personally think she is fucked, completely and utterly fucked. This looks really really bad for her. I am perplexed as to what started all of this in the first place. What put people on to her personal server initially? Do they do this with all exiting Secratary of States?

Are you serious? It surfaced as a result of the Benghazi investigations, which are still going on. It is the most transparently partisan bullshit imaginable. It turns out if you dig into someone's shit for 3 years, eventually you will find something they did wrong.