What does the Secret Service have to do with monitoring some IT contractor? The answer is nothing. Only the Defense Security Service has the authority to approve vendors to handle classified information. The contractor the Clinton's employed had no clearance and had no experience or expertise working for the government.
Understood. I mentioned the Secret Service to make it clear that she wasn't in her basement doing secret communications. Her information is guarded to a certain extent by secret service, as I've read... but yes, that doesn't replace a strong IT Security team. Unfortunately, we're going to go in circles here, because that's why she has the state department to delineate what is fair use and what isn't, and again - they're fine with it. From your very own citation, "The FBI is investigating whether Clintons e-mail setup may have compromised national security information. Officials have said that Clinton is not a target of the inquiry." So if the FBI is clearing her and the State Department has cleared her... I guess you just know better huh?
This citation has all kinds of fun in it. Notably, it goes directly against your assertion that Clinton's emails are classified just by them being sent by the SOS office. This article clearly says, "Although government officials deemed the e-mails classified after Clinton left office, they could complicate her efforts to move beyond the political fallout from the controversy. "
It also speaks directly to my point that much more important than Hillary Clinton's use of the emails, is the security protocols put in place. "But it also highlights concerns raised by Clinton and her supporters that identifying classified material can be a confusing process, and well-meaning public officials reviewing the same material could come to different conclusions as to its classification level."
As I've said again and again and again now - many have done it, so why is Hillary being singled out?
Not all correspondences are. No one is saying that Hillary Clinton can't have a personal server. In fact, it makes perfect sense for her to have a personal server to deal with non-State level issues with. But that's not the point here. The point is that she sacrificed security for convenience and had her staffers communicate with her in her role as Secretary of State in an unsecured fashion. Powell was Secretary of State in much different times than the cyber warfare we live in now. Rules have changed. It was even a big deal for Obama to get a Blackberry in 2009. Why are you deflecting about others? This isn't a Benghazi which hunt. Stop comparing the two.
I won't stop comparing the two, because they are both non-issues brought about by the same event. And you don't know that she sacrificed security for convenience. Again, they were retroactively redacted, so she had no way of knowing. You don't know the particulars of the emails, you don't know the degree of "classification." You don't know the policy in place. And again, the FBI has straight up said that she's not a suspect of the investigation. And I'm sorry.. the idea that Powell didn't have to deal with cyber security concerns in 03 is not very compelling.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/30/russia-hackers-clinton-server/73122712/
So this source basically just said they tried to attack her web space. And then information would be transmitted to 3 servers over seas, including one in Russia. That says pretty much nothing about whether they were successful, whether it was sanctioned Russian State espionage, or what. That could be a standard malware for all we know, designed by someone in Russia. And again, it wouldn't be a Hillary problem, it'd be a protocol problem.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5ad0...ton-subject-hack-attempts-china-korea-germany
From this one, "It was not immediately clear whether the attempted intrusions into Clinton's server were serious espionage threats or the sort of nuisance attacks that hit computer servers the world over. But the new revelations underscore the extent to which any private email server is a target" Again, it doesn't present any real evidence that these weren't run of the mill viruses. No real evidence of information lost.
You are simply ignorant in this area. China got all that ****.
You present a reasonable argument that foreign states attacked her server. No evidence that they received any. And when you say "all that ****," you really don't know what that means... like were these the names of CIA agents, Trade negations, military strategies? You just don't know. You make it out like she placed the whole SOS data banks on her personal server, when, in fact, this server was for only non-classified information, and we have no reason to assume she sent material that was classified at the time. And again, it doesn't really seem like you should be mad at Hillary here, when she was not breaking any laws. Wouldn't the law be the problem?
No I didn't. However, emails between certain positions certainly are.
Excuse me? You said that even if Hillary is talking about her favorite color with Petraus, then that'd be classified. That's what you said, and I'm sorry there is just nothing at all to support this. The documents were retroactively classified. That's the crux of the biscuit.
As a matter of fact, the US Ambassador to Kenya was ousted for using his own email.
This article talks about how he lost his job over security concerns with the SOS... which approved Hillary's. Also, it was about how he got in trouble after essentially refusing to adhere to the protocol. Doesn't it tell you something that that wasn't ht case here?
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/scott-gration-ex-ambassador-hillary-clinton-emails-115820
This article talks about how he lost his job over security concerns with the SOS... which approved Hillary's. Also, it was about how he got in trouble after essentially refusing to adhere to the protocol. Doesn't it tell you something that that wasn't the case here?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a...-sent-clinton-classified-info/article/2573159
Same thing. "Gration was pushed from his post in 2012 after setting up an unsecured email system in the bathroom of his embassy office" This actually makes the case against Hillary LESS compelling, since there are obviously protocols in place that this gentleman didn't adhere to but that Hillary did.
Yea, email wasn't a big thing in Secretary Albright's day. Information Technology has rapidly changed and over the course of the past 10 years, security has been at the forefront. Forget Powell and anyone before him. This is an issue we face today that is unique from the past.
The fact remains that several people have done this practice, it's not against any laws, and there's no evidence of harm. I find the argument that Powell didn't need to deal with cyber security in 03 to be pretty weak personally. And it's pretty difficult to say on the one hand... "this is new, history doesn't apply" and then to also say "this is common sense, she was incompetent for not knowing."
.There's plenty of evidence and the FBI is concerned the administration might be covering it up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/u...-clinton-emails-collide-with-fbi-inquiry.html
Woa, dude... I'm calling shenanigans on this one. This article has one comment about the "obama cover up": I dont think it posed a national security problem, Mr. Obama said Sunday on CBSs 60 Minutes. He said it had been a mistake for Mrs. Clinton to use a private email account when she was secretary of state, but his conclusion was unmistakable: This is not a situation in which Americas national security was endangered.
Those statements angered F.B.I. agents who have been working for months to determine whether Mrs. Clintons email setup did in fact put any of the nations secrets at risk, according to current and former law enforcement officials."
If that equates to a cover up to you... then wow. There's nothing here many. The FBI said that she's not a suspect.
Look, you are obviously too biased to look at this objectively. Just be glad Biden didn't run because had he, Uncle Joe would have asked Daddy Obama to have the Justice department squeeze a little tighter on Hillary's fubar.
It sucks when reality has a liberal bias. Nope... I'm just continuing to tell you the facts. You can try to squeeze around and say "oh she should have known" all you want, but the facts remain:
No evidence of impact
classified retroactively
No laws broken
Many have done it before.
Those points are all I need to show that this is a ridiculous process. Has anyone indicted her? Do we have knowledge about what was on her server? Did she refuse the mandates of the state? Nope. Look, I see why someone who doesn't like her could use this to confirm that she's suspicious, etc. But at the end the of day, all you've got is that she had state documents that weren't classified at the time on a personal server she was given permission to use. Again, again, and again.. wouldn't your efforts be FAR better served getting to the root of the protocols? Wouldn't that stop this from happening in the future? The only real conclusion to make is that this is much more about punishment then about improving policy, and sorry, I'm not down with punishing someone who was following the rules.
