State department: Hillary did not comply with policies

[Knowing]

Does anyone remember the original story? I'm having trouble remembering all of the things that don't matter.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[ivwshane]

Lol - if facts mattered to you, I'd post them. But they are readily available and you still need my help.

No we get it, you are a bitch. When asked for a source you deflect or run away. You and few other posters have a habit of either lying or of being completely duped by what you read or you fail at comprehending what you read. That's your reputation, so forgive me if I don't accept anything you say without a citation now.

Your journey from being a rational being to an irrational one has been hard to watch. I'd suggest you get help but I'm sure that would fall in deaf ears.

 

[LegendKiller]

No we get it, you are a bitch. When asked for a source you deflect or run away. You and few other posters have a habit of either lying or of being completely duped by what you read or you fail at comprehending what you read. That's your reputation, so forgive me if I don't accept anything you say without a citation now.

Your journey from being a rational being to an irrational one has been hard to watch. I'd suggest you get help but I'm sure that would fall in deaf ears.

Lol, yet again, dodge. Your own homers on cnn and wapo and such are shitting on hillbilly and all you do is stick your fingers in your ears and call names.

If you call that sanity I'll continue to be insane.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol, yet again, dodge. Your own homers on cnn and wapo and such are shitting on hillbilly and all you do is stick your fingers in your ears and call names.

If you call that sanity I'll continue to be insane.

You will tell yourself whatever you need to in order to avoid reality.

Dodge number three from you.

 

[Jhhnn]

wow dude, you must know hillary personally. you sure do have a lot of inside info on how this all went down.

There is no indication that classified information arrived on her server through her efforts or those of her staff. It came from outside that circle, like from Blumenthal or as part of a discussion about leaked information as with a NYT story about the drone war. It was not marked as classified until after the fact.

The whole thing just keeps running, however, basically on the principle of Brandolini's law.

 

[Jhhnn]

It wouldn't matter if I got it notarized by God. You'd still not believe it.

Facts apparently matter so little in the formulation of your opinion that you feel no need to back up your own assertions.

First you believed & now you're trying to justify that w/o referencing facts at all. You don't have reasons, just rationalizations.

 

[Starbuck1975]

What facts are you guys looking for at this point. Every major news outlet, even the ones typically favorable to Clinton, are reporting on the State Department audit findings. Nearly all the opinion pieces published today do not paint Clinton in a positive light. There is no longer debate that Clinton deliberately violated policy. It is reasonable to suggest that she did so to dodge FOIA accoutability. It is clear her and her staff chose not to cooperate with the IG audit. She and her campaign have also been less than truthful in their assertions of transparency, compliance and accountability since this scandal first broke.

The only remaining questions is whether the FBI indicts. I am not confident there is enough evidence to bring criminal charges, but it is unfortunate that these things did not come to the surface earlier in the nomination process.

 

[LegendKiller]

Facts apparently matter so little in the formulation of your opinion that you feel no need to back up your own assertions.

First you believed & now you're trying to justify that w/o referencing facts at all. You don't have reasons, just rationalizations.

Ohh look, tweedle dumb showed up. Can't wait for it to be capped off by the Dear Leader. Make the trifecta of liberal fuck ups.

Infraction for personal attack rescinded.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[LegendKiller]

What facts are you guys looking for at this point. Every major news outlet, even the ones typically favorable to Clinton, are reporting on the State Department audit findings. Nearly all the opinion pieces published today do not paint Clinton in a positive light. There is no longer debate that Clinton deliberately violated policy. It is reasonable to suggest that she did so to dodge FOIA accoutability. It is clear her and her staff chose not to cooperate with the IG audit. She and her campaign have also been less than truthful in their assertions of transparency, compliance and accountability since this scandal first broke.

The only remaining questions is whether the FBI indicts. I am not confident there is enough evidence to bring criminal charges, but

Yeah, can you link those? These guys can't figure out how to find them.

 

[Svnla]

From CNN -

Most crucially, the inspector general directly contradicts Clinton's repeated assertions that she complied both with federal law and State Department policies. "At a minimum," the report finds, "Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act."

The report goes further, noting that while Clinton's subsequent production of 55,000 pages of emails in response to State Department demands partially corrected these violations, the records Clinton turned over were incomplete. Remarkably, the report includes reference to a previously unreleased 2010 email in which Clinton, responding to her deputy chief of staff for operations, Huma Abedin, directly addresses her lack of an official State Department email account and voices a fear of the "risk of the personal being accessible" if she had one. In a briefing, State Department officials were unable to confirm the source of this email, but if it was omitted from the records Clinton produced, it again would raise questions about the process she used to distinguish between "federal records" and "personal records" before destroying the latter.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/26/opinions/clinton-email-server-ig-report-opinion-cox/index.html


As I said before, rules are for little people, not Hillary. She is too busy working hard for us the little people to follow those darn rules. LOL. <sarcastic>

 

[Jhhnn]

Ohh look, tweedle dumb showed up. Can't wait for it to be capped off by the Dear Leader. Make the trifecta of liberal fuck ups.

Well, I hope that the rest of your life isn't the nasty hot mess you've been spewing here.

You're so deep into it that you can't possibly take a look at yourself & what you're doing. If you think Hillary has made errors in judgement that's fine & generally agreed. That doesn't excuse your own lack of it.

 

[ivwshane]

Yeah, can you link those? These guys can't figure out how to find them.

I'm not asking for links to his claims, dipshit, I'm asking for links to your claims.
Unlike you, he actually provided a link to his claims. Probably because his claims weren't pulled from his ass like yours was.

 

[FerrelGeek]

The FBI can't indict. They have to formally present their findings and request that a federal grand jury review said findings and determine if an indictment is warranted. What will be interesting is whether or not the AG will turn the request over to a grand jury if the request is made.

What facts are you guys looking for at this point. Every major news outlet, even the ones typically favorable to Clinton, are reporting on the State Department audit findings. Nearly all the opinion pieces published today do not paint Clinton in a positive light. There is no longer debate that Clinton deliberately violated policy. It is reasonable to suggest that she did so to dodge FOIA accoutability. It is clear her and her staff chose not to cooperate with the IG audit. She and her campaign have also been less than truthful in their assertions of transparency, compliance and accountability since this scandal first broke.

The only remaining questions is whether the FBI indicts. I am not confident there is enough evidence to bring criminal charges, but it is unfortunate that these things did not come to the surface earlier in the nomination process.

 

[Phoenix86]

I'll take a citation for every claim you just pulled out of your ass.

If you have even half-assed been following the story you'd know all of that is pretty accurate. Go look it up yourself, it's easy to find.

If you believed this was a security review, well, good luck with that.

 

[feralkid]

The FBI can't indict. They have to formally present their findings and request that a federal grand jury review said findings and determine if an indictment is warranted. What will be interesting is whether or not the AG will turn the request over to a grand jury if the request is made.

Definitely will happen.



In 60 days.

 

[LegendKiller]

If you have even half-assed been following the story you'd know all of that is pretty accurate. Go look it up yourself, it's easy to find.

If you believed this was a security review, well, good luck with that.

That's why I don't even bother. Nothing will be good enough for these fuck ups.

 

[ivwshane]

If you have even half-assed been following the story you'd know all of that is pretty accurate. Go look it up yourself, it's easy to find.

If you believed this was a security review, well, good luck with that.

I've been following it since the beginning and nothing about most of legendkillers claims have been mentioned.

So by all means put up or shut up or I can add you to the list of bitches on this forum who simply spout bullshit.

 

[OutHouse]

That's why I don't even bother. Nothing will be good enough for these fuck ups.

Yup

 

[ivwshane]

Yup

Bubble maintained!

 

[Phoenix86]

I've been following it since the beginning and nothing about most of legendkillers claims have been mentioned.

So by all means put up or shut up or I can add you to the list of bitches on this forum who simply spout bullshit.

1. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/5-things-you-might-have-missed-in-the-clinton-email-report/

Conversation about the email controversy often pivots around statements that “other secretaries of state” regularly used private email for official business and kept poor records of those emails.

But this report says that only two secretaries of state fall into those categories: Hillary Clinton and Colin Powell.

Powell is the first.

2. Same link:
We already knew that Secretary Colin Powell exclusively used an outside, personal e-mail account to conduct State Department business.

It was known that Powell was using external e-mail.

3. Same link (holy shit you're lazy, 3 points from one article):
The State Department has continued to look for Powell’s emails, requesting to connect with his Internet service provider.

It was his ISPs mail, not private server. No known attacks, don't ask me to prove a negative, show me it was attacked or shove it.

4. http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary...se-came-before-recent-rule-changes-1425415233

But in 2009, the National Archives did issue regulations that said agencies allowing employees to do official business on nonofficial email accounts had to ensure that any records sent on private email systems are preserved “in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.”

Rules changed in '09. She did not preserve or even turn over the data until after she left AND only under FOIA request, even then she DELETED mail.

5. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/clintons-personal-email-server-vulnerable-hackers/

Experts said the Microsoft remote desktop service wasn’t intended for such use without additional protective measures, and was the subject of U.S. government and industry warnings at the time over attacks from even low-skilled intruders.

Blatant known security hole a mile wide.

https://www.wired.com/2015/03/clintons-email-server-vulnerable/

The State Department, Mayer says, uses a “self-signed certificate,” a less-than-sterling security practice. “Against man-in-the middle attacks, both are currently insecure,” he says.

LOL WUT? Self-signed?!

6. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/25/hillary-clinton-failed-report-several-hacking-atte/

In one instance in 2011, Mrs. Clinton’s tech guru thought the server was being hacked and shut it down for a few minutes. Months later, Mrs. Clinton feared yet another hack attack was underway — yet never reported the incident to the department, in another breach of department rules.

Failed to report known hacking attempts. It's very possible at least one, if not several were successful given the low bar for breaking into RDP.

7. http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...ivate-blackberry-avoided-use-of-secure-phone/

The new documents also contain a February 22, 2009, email exchange between Clinton and her then-Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, trying to communicate over a secure line after Clinton returned from a trip (evidently to Asia). Unable to set up a secure communication, Clinton told Mills, “I called ops and they gave me your ‘secure’ cells… but only got a high-pitched whining sound.” When Mills suggested that Clinton try the secure line again, the former secretary wrote back, “I give up. Call me on my home #.”

Can't use secured line, opts for unsecured. Many-many-many-many images of her using the BBerry overseas.

But hey, I'm sure you have been following this VERY CAREFULLY.

 

[Phoenix86]

Yup

I fully expect them to pivot to attacking sources, moving goalposts, strawmen, etc.

 

[LegendKiller]

I'm not asking for links to his claims, dipshit, I'm asking for links to your claims.
Unlike you, he actually provided a link to his claims. Probably because his claims weren't pulled from his ass like yours was.

How about you tell me which specific claims you think are false. Then I will treat you like you have the brains of a sand flea and link to all of the articles, since you so obviously lack the cognitive abilities to do this yourself.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol, as suspected.

1. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/5-things-you-might-have-missed-in-the-clinton-email-report/

Conversation about the email controversy often pivots around statements that “other secretaries of state” regularly used private email for official business and kept poor records of those emails.

But this report says that only two secretaries of state fall into those categories: Hillary Clinton and Colin Powell.

Powell is the first.

2. Same link:
We already knew that Secretary Colin Powell exclusively used an outside, personal e-mail account to conduct State Department business.

It was known that Powell was using external e-mail.

3. Same link (holy shit you're lazy, 3 points from one article):
The State Department has continued to look for Powell’s emails, requesting to connect with his Internet service provider.

It was his ISPs mail, not private server. No known attacks, don't ask me to prove a negative, show me it was attacked or shove it.

You must not be very bright are you. An ISP email server is a private server and is no different than Clinton having her own private server. You would think that on a tech forum like this you would understand that.
Also, the claim was that because it wasn't his server that means it wasn't prone to attack, the article doesn't make that claim.

4. http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary...se-came-before-recent-rule-changes-1425415233

But in 2009, the National Archives did issue regulations that said agencies allowing employees to do official business on nonofficial email accounts had to ensure that any records sent on private email systems are preserved “in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.”

Rules changed in '09. She did not preserve or even turn over the data until after she left AND only under FOIA request, even then she DELETED mail.

The federal record act has been in place since the 50's. Powell preserved none of those emails.

5. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/clintons-personal-email-server-vulnerable-hackers/

Experts said the Microsoft remote desktop service wasn’t intended for such use without additional protective measures, and was the subject of U.S. government and industry warnings at the time over attacks from even low-skilled intruders.

Blatant known security hole a mile wide.

https://www.wired.com/2015/03/clintons-email-server-vulnerable/

The State Department, Mayer says, uses a “self-signed certificate,” a less-than-sterling security practice. “Against man-in-the middle attacks, both are currently insecure,” he says.

LOL WUT? Self-signed?!

What security did Clinton blatantly circumvent as was claimed? Its speculation on his part.

6. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/25/hillary-clinton-failed-report-several-hacking-atte/

In one instance in 2011, Mrs. Clinton’s tech guru thought the server was being hacked and shut it down for a few minutes. Months later, Mrs. Clinton feared yet another hack attack was underway — yet never reported the incident to the department, in another breach of department rules.

Failed to report known hacking attempts. It's very possible at least one, if not several were successful given the low bar for breaking into RDP.

The claim was that Powell didn't know his server was attacked and therefore wasn't required to report it. Powell didn't know because the server wasn't under his control. What's more important reporting or knowing/stopping a potential hack or not knowing whether you are being hacked at all?

7. http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...ivate-blackberry-avoided-use-of-secure-phone/

The new documents also contain a February 22, 2009, email exchange between Clinton and her then-Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, trying to communicate over a secure line after Clinton returned from a trip (evidently to Asia). Unable to set up a secure communication, Clinton told Mills, “I called ops and they gave me your ‘secure’ cells… but only got a high-pitched whining sound.” When Mills suggested that Clinton try the secure line again, the former secretary wrote back, “I give up. Call me on my home #.”

Can't use secured line, opts for unsecured. Many-many-many-many images of her using the BBerry overseas.

Thanks for highlighting the limitations and issues an SoS has in order to do their job. Perhaps you can bring some of that faux outrage to the fact that our nuclear weapons still rely on floppies.

But hey, I'm sure you have been following this VERY CAREFULLY.

Using her black berry was not against policy. Communicating classified material with it is but your link can't prove that classified material was transmitted through it.

So thanks for helping me show why legendkillers claims were bullshit. Should I pm you when he wants to act like a little bitch or do you want him to fight his own battles?

 

[ivwshane]

How about you tell me which specific claims you think are false. Then I will treat you like you have the brains of a sand flea and link to all of the articles, since you so obviously lack the cognitive abilities to do this yourself.

Don't bother bitch, your mommy took care of it for you.

Infraction rescinded.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[LegendKiller]

Lol, as suspected.



Using her black berry was not against policy. Communicating classified material with it is but your link can't prove that classified material was transmitted through it.

So thanks for helping me show why legendkillers claims were bullshit. Should I pm you when he wants to act like a little bitch or do you want him to fight his own battles?

By logic we know she had classified info on her server which would be accessible on her blackberry.

Furthermore, secured blackberries weren't going to be issued to her, which is why she created her own server, this she knew she was creating an unsecured link and circumvented security policies in yet another manner.

I mean, really, the mental gymnastics are breathtaking.