Man who installed Hillary email server given immunity by government

[ivwshane]

You are the one that said that propaganda was being spread. The information I use to gauge my opinion is what I hear from the FBI. So the FBI must be spreading propaganda, they are the ones keeping the investigation going.

I would just like to see justice done. I think the investigation would have been over long ago if they weren't finding things.

I'll take a link to what informative you are using that came from the FBI please.

 

[Bowfinger]

You are the one that said that propaganda was being spread. The information I use to gauge my opinion is what I hear from the FBI. So the FBI must be spreading propaganda, they are the ones keeping the investigation going.

I would just like to see justice done. I think the investigation would have been over long ago if they weren't finding things.

No, that's not the information you're using, because the FBI has said nothing beyond the fact that an investigation is underway. Your information comes from the many propaganda sites dedicated to selling conservatives speculation and innuendo.

 

[Bowfinger]

Granted, if she were sending classified information she's still be in hot water. But you've maintained that she is the victim of other people sending her classified information, or information that was later classified when the peons tried to get a peek. Certainly if she had received from and sent messages to foreign government officials on the State Department system, she would be 100% in the clear.

No. False. That remains the key point you're either missing or intentionally evading. Such communications are "born classified" according to a strict reading of the rules, and they are not allowed on State's unclassified email system either. That's the point.

It's a ridiculous restriction in this modern age of pervasive electronic communications. Before you make one of your usual snarky, partisan duhversions, consider Colin Powell's view:

Classified Data Found in Personal Email of Colin Powell ...
[ ... ]
Mr. Powell, in a telephone interview, disputed the department’s designation, saying he had reviewed the two emails with the inspector general’s office and responded incredulously, “What are you talking about?” The emails, he said, were sent by two career ambassadors and forwarded to him by his executive assistant, something he encouraged for important matters. One involved a kidnapping in the Philippines, the other general views on the situation in the Middle East. Both, he said, were now considered “confidential.”

“That is an absurdity,” he said. If two seasoned diplomats could not discuss their views with the secretary in unclassified emails, he said, “we might as well shut the department down.” ...

 

[pcgeek11]

No, that's not the information you're using, because the FBI has said nothing beyond the fact that an investigation is underway. Your information comes from the many propaganda sites dedicated to selling conservatives speculation and innuendo.

They are investigating and have been for a while.
Granted immunity to one of her staffers.
The insane number of classified e-mails.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-emails-fbi-probe-confirmed-state-d/?page=all

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/the-fbi-just-gave-hillary-the-worst-news-of-her-campaign/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/12/politics/hillary-clinton-michael-flynn-email-fbi-investigation/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/fbi-targeting-hillary-clinton/


I know you will say all of this is propaganda so .... Time will tell.

If there was nothing to it they would have finished this months ago...

 

[Bowfinger]

If you read you own links, you'll note they confirm what I said. The FBI confirms there is an investigation. That's it.

They are investigating and have been for a while.
Granted immunity to one of her staffers.
The insane number of classified e-mails.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-emails-fbi-probe-confirmed-state-d/?page=all

This link quotes the FBI confirming there is an investigation. It then offers some third party reports, and a heaping helping of self-serving spin from Reince Priebus.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/the-fbi-just-gave-hillary-the-worst-news-of-her-campaign/

This link has nothing but third-party spin. It doesn't quote the FBI at all.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/12/politics/hillary-clinton-michael-flynn-email-fbi-investigation/

This story leads with a bunch of third-party spin, from someone who finally admits he has no first-hand information about the investigation. It then mentions the same FBI statement confirming there is an investigation, and closes with remarks from others outside the FBI.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/fbi-targeting-hillary-clinton/

Judicial Watch quotes the complete text of the FBI confirmation, which is valuable. Everything else is second-hand, at best, and most is nothing but spin. Note that Judicial Watch is a party to the FOIA lawsuits. Its press releases are therefore just as credible as OJ's claims of searching for the real killer.

I know you will say all of this is propaganda so .... Time will tell.

If there was nothing to it they would have finished this months ago...

Yes, time will tell, which is exactly what I've been saying all along. I was addressing your statement that, "The information I use to gauge my opinion is what I hear from the FBI." No, that's not where you get your information, which you've helpfully demonstrated. You rely on a little bit of FBI and a whole lot of third-party speculation and innuendo. That's another point I've been making all along.

 

[ivwshane]

If you read you own links, you'll note they confirm what I said. The FBI confirms there is an investigation. That's it.
This link quotes the FBI confirming there is an investigation. It then offers some third party reports, and a heaping helping of self-serving spin from Reince Priebus.


This link has nothing but third-party spin. It doesn't quote the FBI at all.


This story leads with a bunch of third-party spin, from someone who finally admits he has no first-hand information about the investigation. It then mentions the same FBI statement confirming there is an investigation, and closes with remarks from others outside the FBI.


Judicial Watch quotes the complete text of the FBI confirmation, which is valuable. Everything else is second-hand, at best, and most is nothing but spin. Note that Judicial Watch is a party to the FOIA lawsuits. Its press releases are therefore just as credible as OJ's claims of searching for the real killer.


Yes, time will tell, which is exactly what I've been saying all along. I was addressing your statement that, "The information I use to gauge my opinion is what I hear from the FBI." No, that's not where you get your information, which you've helpfully demonstrated. You rely on a little bit of FBI and a whole lot of third-party speculation and innuendo. That's another point I've been making all along.

And yet all you've done is caused him to dig his heels in even more. Do you think he is a big enough man to admit he was wrong and he was duped? Because I don't think he is.

 

[pcgeek11]

If there is nothing there what is taking so long?

Why are they giving a Hillary staffer Immunity?

 

[ivwshane]

If there is nothing there what is taking so long?

Why are they giving a Hillary staffer Immunity?

Haha! Get back up on that horse kiddo!

 

[Bowfinger]

If there is nothing there what is taking so long?

One, who said there's nothing there? I didn't. I said we need to see what the FBI finds.

Two, because doing a full investigation sometimes takes time. You seem to be confused about how an investigation works. You don't reach your conclusion first and then decide how much to investigate. You investigate until you have all the facts, then reach your conclusion.

Why are they giving a Hillary staffer Immunity?

To get him to cooperate. He would not cooperate as long as he faced the possibility of his own words being used against him. Now he'll cooperate. Anything beyond that is speculation.

 

[pcgeek11]

And yet all you've done is caused him to dig his heels in even more. Do you think he is a big enough man to admit he was wrong and he was duped? Because I don't think he is.

Wrong about what? I never said she was absolutely guilty ( even though I personally feel she probably is guilty of a lot more that General Petraeus who was convicted ).

I'll admit I am wrong when I am.

Oh and I really don't give a crap what you think.

 

[pcgeek11]

Haha! Get back up on that horse kiddo!

Fuck yourself.

 

[pcgeek11]

One, who said there's nothing there? I didn't. I said we need to see what the FBI finds.

Two, because doing a full investigation sometimes takes time. You seem to be confused about how an investigation works. You don't reach your conclusion first and then decide how much to investigate. You investigate until you have all the facts, then reach your conclusion.



To get him to cooperate. He would not cooperate as long as he faced the possibility of his own words being used against him. Now he'll cooperate. Anything beyond that is speculation.

This is also speculation.

I tend to see it as they have something and they offered him immunity in order to get more information.

 

[Bowfinger]

This is also speculation.

How so? We know when the FBI first approached Pagliano, he asserted his Fifth Amendment rights. We also know they have now offered him immunity, and he has agreed to cooperate. What part is speculation?

I tend to see it as they have something and they offered him immunity in order to get more information.

I'm not sure how that contradicts what I said. Clearly, they want to get more information from him.

 

[ivwshane]

Wrong about what? I never said she was absolutely guilty ( even though I personally feel she probably is guilty of a lot more that General Petraeus who was convicted ).

I'll admit I am wrong when I am.

Oh and I really don't give a crap what you think.

Clearly you won't!

You claimed you get your information from the FBI and when it was pointed out to you that the FBI hasn't released any information you ignored it and then continued to post more speculation and innuendo. So not only will you not admit when you are wrong but you are willing to double down on your wrongness.

 

[ivwshane]

Fuck yourself.

The truth hurts doesn't it

 

[SP33Demon]

pcgeek, you're always welcome in the Trump camp. No federal investigations to worry about. I'd take my chances with Trump over someone who already fucked us over and doesn't even know how to use an email account properly.

 

[ivwshane]

pcgeek, you're always welcome in the Trump camp. No federal investigations to worry about. I'd take my chances with Trump over someone who already fucked us over and doesn't even know how to use an email account properly.

You know your boy doesn't use a computer either right? Lol!

http://gizmodo.com/has-donald-trump-ever-used-a-computer-1762376695

Keep fluffing!

 

[werepossum]

So the FBI is part of the "Right Wing" and spreading propaganda now.

OK.

Well, she did say it was vast . . .

Romania approves extradition of convicted hacker 'Guccifer' to U.S.

Dynasty 2016 Episode 2: Romney v. Trump

The article linked directly above contains a quote the first article linked.

I'd say the FBI is building a case that will be tough for Loretta Lynch to easily dismiss. She can of course delay although some legal minds feel that a grand jury has already been convened. They see no other reason for Pagliano to have been given immunity.

They can't very well say she did nothing wrong if they don't have Pagliano's information, they'd look silly. So immunizing Pagliano works either way, for building an iron-tight case against Mrs. Clinton OR for making sure neither they nor any rogue non-Democrat prosecutor can ever build such a case.

I may be wrong, but I still cannot see the Hildabeast ever prosecuted for this. How could the FBI ethically prosecute her but not also prosecute the Pubbies, who did much the same thing just to a lesser degree?

No. False. That remains the key point you're either missing or intentionally evading. Such communications are "born classified" according to a strict reading of the rules, and they are not allowed on State's unclassified email system either. That's the point.

It's a ridiculous restriction in this modern age of pervasive electronic communications. Before you make one of your usual snarky, partisan duhversions, consider Colin Powell's view:

Man, I'm having a really difficult time getting down to your level. Let me try again.

State has two systems, a secure system and a non-secure system.

Messages that honestly should be secure AND CLASSIFIED can reside on the secure system, which requires our controlling all the machines at both ends and along the routing path. This cannot share a machine with non-secure email and in that regard, should properly be called something other than email, to differentiate.

As this precludes the larger Internet world, we need an intermediate system that is secure, but not suited for highly classified document transmission. I would agree that messages to and from foreign entities who need secure communications with us but should not be allowed on our secure network should not be highly classified, but should still be considered as highly sensitive. I am fine with changing the law to accommodate the advances in technology, I'm just pointing out that we have a process for changing the law which does not start with putting a server in Mrs. Clinton's basement.

These highly sensitive messages are appropriate for sending through the State Department's email system, which is as secure as we can make it. The State Department's email system uses controlled routing, has state of the art security, and most importantly is constantly monitored so that when an intrusion occurs, it can be shut down as quickly as possible. Contrast this with a typical server; if and when an intrusion, no alarms are immediately generated. Assuming the hacker is very good, there may be no direct signs of any intrusion. Witness Target's penetration. Target had everything set up correctly, on paper: Current software and monitoring by FireEye, one of the very best; roughly a dozen people monitoring database security at any given moment; automated responses set up to shut down any detected intrusion. Where did it fail? Target failed because the people monitoring database security dropped the ball. The FireEye software detected the malware; the FireEye firm notified the Target people monitoring database security repeatedly. Yet Target still missed the opportunity to stop the intrusion, stop the data's escape, or even know exactly what was taken, since the hackers had plenty of time to cover their tracks.

Now replace Target's database security team with one guy who is selected for political reliability and works for a different government entity, and replace FireEye with whatever security was installed in the Clinton's basement, and replace consumer credit information with our nation's secrets. Perhaps now you can see the difference. Or you can go on pretending it's exactly the same thing and demanding changes in the law to retroactively accommodate Mrs. Clinton's behavior. Frankly I don't care either way.

 

[ivwshane]

Well, she did say it was vast . . .


They can't very well say she did nothing wrong if they don't have Pagliano's information, they'd look silly. So immunizing Pagliano works either way, for building an iron-tight case against Mrs. Clinton OR for making sure neither they nor any rogue non-Democrat prosecutor can ever build such a case.

I may be wrong, but I still cannot see the Hildabeast ever prosecuted for this. How could the FBI ethically prosecute her but not also prosecute the Pubbies, who did much the same thing just to a lesser degree?


Man, I'm having a really difficult time getting down to your level. Let me try again.

State has two systems, a secure system and a non-secure system.

Messages that honestly should be secure AND CLASSIFIED can reside on the secure system, which requires our controlling all the machines at both ends and along the routing path. This cannot share a machine with non-secure email and in that regard, should properly be called something other than email, to differentiate.

As this precludes the larger Internet world, we need an intermediate system that is secure, but not suited for highly classified document transmission. I would agree that messages to and from foreign entities who need secure communications with us but should not be allowed on our secure network should not be highly classified, but should still be considered as highly sensitive. I am fine with changing the law to accommodate the advances in technology, I'm just pointing out that we have a process for changing the law which does not start with putting a server in Mrs. Clinton's basement.

These highly sensitive messages are appropriate for sending through the State Department's email system, which is as secure as we can make it. The State Department's email system uses controlled routing, has state of the art security, and most importantly is constantly monitored so that when an intrusion occurs, it can be shut down as quickly as possible. Contrast this with a typical server; if and when an intrusion, no alarms are immediately generated. Assuming the hacker is very good, there may be no direct signs of any intrusion. Witness Target's penetration. Target had everything set up correctly, on paper: Current software and monitoring by FireEye, one of the very best; roughly a dozen people monitoring database security at any given moment; automated responses set up to shut down any detected intrusion. Where did it fail? Target failed because the people monitoring database security dropped the ball. The FireEye software detected the malware; the FireEye firm notified the Target people monitoring database security repeatedly. Yet Target still missed the opportunity to stop the intrusion, stop the data's escape, or even know exactly what was taken, since the hackers had plenty of time to cover their tracks.

Now replace Target's database security team with one guy who is selected for political reliability and works for a different government entity, and replace FireEye with whatever security was installed in the Clinton's basement, and replace consumer credit information with our nation's secrets. Perhaps now you can see the difference. Or you can go on pretending it's exactly the same thing and demanding changes in the law to retroactively accommodate Mrs. Clinton's behavior. Frankly I don't care either way.

Your premise is wrong and you are speculating as to how non secured government email works. Sensitive information is not allowed to be on computers that are connected to the Internet. Period. The issue at hand is an outdated classification system and policies that simply don't allow officials to do their job in a realistic way. You can rake Hillary over the coals for this if you want to but then you should also apply your standard to all prior federal employees.

 

[Bowfinger]

Man, I'm having a really difficult time getting down to your level. Let me try again.

Perhaps your basic approach is wrong. Grab a ladder instead of trying to dig an 8,000-foot-deep hole. You'll get to my level much, much faster.

[ ... background info trimmed ... ]

As this precludes the larger Internet world, we need an intermediate system that is secure, but not suited for highly classified document transmission. I would agree that messages to and from foreign entities who need secure communications with us but should not be allowed on our secure network should not be highly classified, but should still be considered as highly sensitive. I am fine with changing the law to accommodate the advances in technology, I'm just pointing out that we have a process for changing the law which does not start with putting a server in Mrs. Clinton's basement.

As best I can tell, you've moved the goalposts. You are no longer claiming, "Certainly if she had received from and sent messages to foreign government officials on the State Department system, she would be 100% in the clear." Since the current State email system is not cleared for classified data either, it's no different legally than her personal server. Instead, you're suggesting a better approach that should be implemented, a future ideal world. I would agree, Uncle Sugar needs a realistic model for handling modern communications.

That has nothing to do with Clinton, however.

These highly sensitive messages are appropriate for sending through the State Department's email system, which is as secure as we can make it. The State Department's email system uses controlled routing, has state of the art security, and most importantly is constantly monitored so that when an intrusion occurs, it can be shut down as quickly as possible. Contrast this with a typical server; if and when an intrusion, no alarms are immediately generated. Assuming the hacker is very good, there may be no direct signs of any intrusion. Witness Target's penetration. [ ... Target example trimmed ... ]

That's a whole lot of empty speculation. Based on the fact that State's email system has been hacked several times, and that IT experts with knowledge of State's systems say they're badly outdated, my speculation is that your speculation is a whole lot of wishful thinking. But yes, that's how it should be done.

Perhaps now you can see the difference. [ ... derp trimmed ... ]

I've always been able to see the difference. I do this stuff for a living, you know. It's one of the reasons why I said from the very start that Clinton's use of a personal email system was inappropriate. The point you keep dodging is it apparently wasn't illegal, in spite of the endless hand-waving, smoke-blowing, and often frankly stupid (Espionage Act of 1917? ) cries of the wing-nut propaganda machine. Endless speculation and innuendo presented as fact, eagerly guzzled by outrage junkies who love being played as fools.

 

[werepossum]

Your premise is wrong and you are speculating as to how non secured government email works. Sensitive information is not allowed to be on computers that are connected to the Internet. Period. The issue at hand is an outdated classification system and policies that simply don't allow officials to do their job in a realistic way. You can rake Hillary over the coals for this if you want to but then you should also apply your standard to all prior federal employees.

Depends on the level of classification. ClassNet, a sister/descendant of SIPRNet (note to self: Do not hire disgruntled, mentally unstable trannies as admins for highly classified systems) handles classified information up to Secret classification, which would include most of what we are discussing here. This is, quite literally, why the Internet was originally funded and created. (Thanks, Algore!) This is also why the email servers in the Department of State software (and Defense, Homeland Security, etc.) force a classification choice to send a message - so the appropriate system is used. It is trivial to properly distribute a classified email among properly vetted State contacts - you save the OpenNet email message as a record on ClassNet. ClassNet, like SIPRNet, handles information classified up to up to Secret. OpenNet handles information up to Sensitive. Hillary actually had a ClassNet account, she just chose not to use it.

Incidentally, JWICS handles email up to Top Secret classification, although that would require carrying two devices. The whole point of having a Top Secret email device is defeated by the possibility that you can accidentally email Top Secret classified messages to your wedding party. Like SMART, ClassNet, & JWICS, there is tons of information publicly available as to how these systems work.

Applying "my standard" (aka "THE LAW") to all prior federal employees is exactly why I don't think Hillary will ever be prosecuted. Although she is certainly the most egregious violator, I don't see an ethical way to prosecute her without prosecuting most members of D.C.'s previous administrations. Prosecuting only the most egregious violators doesn't really work if everyone can see the other violators, it's really difficult to do with party leaders in a two party system, and it's practically impossible to do with one party's presumptive nominee.

 

[Jhhnn]

Applying "my standard" (aka "THE LAW") to all prior federal employees is exactly why I don't think Hillary will ever be prosecuted. Although she is certainly the most egregious violator, I don't see an ethical way to prosecute her without prosecuting most members of D.C.'s previous administrations. Prosecuting only the most egregious violators doesn't really work if everyone can see the other violators, it's really difficult to do with party leaders in a two party system, and it's practically impossible to do with one party's presumptive nominee.

I don't believe that you're even vaguely qualified to say what the law is. Which leaves you propagandizing on the basis of what you believe or think will sell to the rubes.

 

[werepossum]

Perhaps your basic approach is wrong. Grab a ladder instead of trying to dig an 8,000-foot-deep hole. You'll get to my level much, much faster.



As best I can tell, you've moved the goalposts. You are no longer claiming, "Certainly if she had received from and sent messages to foreign government officials on the State Department system, she would be 100% in the clear." Since the current State email system is not cleared for classified data either, it's no different legally than her personal server. Instead, you're suggesting a better approach that should be implemented, a future ideal world. I would agree, Uncle Sugar needs a realistic model for handling modern communications.

That has nothing to do with Clinton, however.

That's a whole lot of empty speculation. Based on the fact that State's email system has been hacked several times, and that IT experts with knowledge of State's systems say they're badly outdated, my speculation is that your speculation is a whole lot of wishful thinking. But yes, that's how it should be done.

I've always been able to see the difference. I do this stuff for a living, you know. It's one of the reasons why I said from the very start that Clinton's use of a personal email system was inappropriate. The point you keep dodging is it apparently wasn't illegal, in spite of the endless hand-waving, smoke-blowing, and often frankly stupid (Espionage Act of 1917? ) cries of the wing-nut propaganda machine. Endless speculation and innuendo presented as fact, eagerly guzzled by outrage junkies who love being played as fools.

Okay, let's try this one more time. Say for some bizarre, unknowable reason Mrs. Clinton decided to use the secure system that, well, everyone else in State uses.

Now let's say that Mrs. Clinton receives an email containing classified information. Can Mrs. Clinton be held legally liable for what someone else sent her?
(A) No, she has no responsibility for what someone else sends her.
(B) Yes, it's exactly the same thing 'cause reasons.

Assuming by some momentary lapse in judgment you actually said the obvious (and correct) answer, A, let us move on.

Assuming this scenario happens, the classified email message now resides on a State Department server. Is Mrs. Clinton responsible for that classified information residing on a non-classified server?
(A) No, she has no responsibility for the server - that's someone else's responsibility.
(B) Yes, it's exactly the same thing 'cause reasons.

Assuming that once again you actually said the obvious (and correct) answer, A, let us move on.

Let us assume, for whatever reason, that Mrs. Clinton decides to route all her email through a server in her basement, so the classified email now resides in her basement. Is Mrs. Clinton responsible for that classified information residing on a non-classified server?
(A) Yes, because she selected the server where she receives her email.
(B) No, she has no responsibility 'cause reasons.

The answer, once again, is A. By taking responsibility for the server, she takes responsibility for the email that server receives. This is not just a function of IT, it's ubiquitous in business. If a client sends me information I should not have - say, their firm's personnel files - to my business email account, it's not my problem. It's the client's problem for sending it, and it's my firm's responsibility to keep it secure even though we should never have had it. If instead I ask the client to send all correspondence to my home address and I receive those files, now it's my problem. It's still the client's problem for sending it, but now it's my problem because I'm the reason it is in that particular place and I now have the responsibility of keeping it secure.

Assuming of course that you disagree with this, let's move forward to her forwarding the classified email. If Mrs. Clinton forwards the email with classified information from her proper State account, she must select the security level. The purpose here is to keep classified and/or sensitive information from getting into the wrong hands, correct? Is this more or less secure than a system which treats classified emails exactly like emails containing the latest Dick Cheney joke or reception color scheme? If Mrs. Clinton replies to or forwards an email message through the State Department system, and she is following the proper procedure, then she is fine. If she replies to or forwards an email message through the State Department system, and she is following the proper procedure, then she is liable. But you don't get to assume that she automatically breaks the law and then claim that it's immaterial how she broke it so she did nothing wrong.

As far as "inappropriate", that's farting in a public pool or ordering white wine with steak.

EDIT: Just to be excruciatingly clear:
As I noted in an earlier post, had Mrs. Clinton received an email containing classified information on her official State Department, she saves that email as a record on ClassNet and then is able to legally send it to anyone legally allowed to receive it. That is after all why we paid for ClassNet.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Sensitive information is not allowed to be on computers that are connected to the Internet. Period. The issue at hand is an outdated classification system and policies that simply don't allow officials to do their job in a realistic way.

I think the "issue at hand" is how that "sensitive data" got on to Hillary's non-secure internet-connected system. How did it "jump the gap", as they say.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

I think the "issue at hand" is how that "sensitive data" got on to Hillary's non-secure internet-connected system. How did it "jump the gap", as they say.

Fern

There's no evidence that such a jump occurred within the State Dept.

As has been pointed out countless times, new information comes into the office of the SoS all the time & some of it is later deemed to be classified at different levels. That doesn't mean it was classified when it arrived or that it could have arrived trough classified systems.