June 21, 2017

"The State Department has opened a formal inquiry into whether former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her aides mishandled classified information while she was the nation’s top diplomat..."

"... Fox News has learned. Despite being under investigation, Clinton and her staffers still have security clearances to access sensitive government information. The department’s investigation aims to determine whether Clinton and her closest aides violated government protocols by using her private server to receive, hold and transmit classified and top-secret government documents...."

It never ends. Why should it? 

184 comments:

rhhardin said...

Security clearance doesn't get you access to classified information. You need need to know, not that they're really good at enforcing that in this age of the single man megaleaker.

harrogate said...

They're putting the silly in silly season

Matthew Sablan said...

We know they did. She had her uncleared maid pick up classified emails, printed on a non-SIPR printer, in a non-secure location from a non-secure, non-government device.

The question is: Are we going to do anything about it?

Matthew Sablan said...

She communicated secret or sensitive information to her uncleared daughter on a non-secure, non-government device, to a non-secure, non-government device, with her daughter using a pseudonym.

Abedin forwarded secret emails to a non-secure device in her home (and hid it from the FBI when they first asked about it.)

We *know without a doubt* sensitive, secret and classified information was mishandled. The question, again: Are we going to do anything about it?

Matthew Sablan said...

We learned about this because she illegally altered email chains that contained sensitive, classified or secret information to -- was it Blumenthal? -- when a legal, investigative body asked her for it.

ddh said...

In the instance of Hillary Clinton's handling of classified material, there is reason to think that crimes were committed. Why not a special prosecutor?

Ken B said...

One hopes this is just a formal first step in the process. We know she did. We even have Comey's word for it. The interesting question is if she still gets a pass.

traditionalguy said...

Impeach her, I say, impeach her. But first empanel 5 to 7 talking heads on Journalism Cable shows to say how evil she is at everything she does all day every day for years. Who cares what happens at State.

Then start a criminal investigation into the 70 some Arkancide sudden deaths. A Comey clone can lead that so once she has been proved guilty, he can announce no Prosecutor can charge her because she had no intent.

Rene Saunce said...

She paid no price for her criminal act. I'd like to know more about the Clinton Foundation, and all of the money they made while she was head of the State Dept.

Bob Boyd said...

Why do Hillary and her aides still have security clearances?
Is that usual for people who have left government service?

AReasonableMan said...

This is beyond stupid given how many pointless investigations there have already been, but hey, 'Lock her up'. 'Lock her up'.

Meade said...

Like with a cloth or something?

Matthew Sablan said...

"This is beyond stupid given how many pointless investigations there have already been, but hey, 'Lock her up'. 'Lock her up'."

-- The investigations were not pointless; we learned a *lot* about what she did. For example, without these investigations, we wouldn't know Obama lied to us. He knew about the server and, in fact, had a pseudonym on there to communicate with her.

That's... telling and good to know.

Meade said...

"Lock her up"

But then who will lead The Resistance?

Trumpit said...

"We *know without a doubt* sensitive, secret and classified information was mishandled. The question, again: Are we going to do anything about it?"

You did something about it - you voted for Trump. You cut off your nose to spite your face. Your nose looks worse than the late Michael Jackson's who hated his face and his brown complexion.

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Reinhold Niebuhr

Matthew Sablan said...

Did I vote for Trump?

Rene Saunce said...

Hillary 2020!

Matthew Sablan said...

[Chuck has stated he voted for Trump, which is more of a positive endorsement than I've ever said.]

Rene Saunce said...

ARM wanted Hillary to give him free health care, so he has no problem ignoring Hillary's money grubbing selfishness.

Unknown said...

Yeah, whatever.

The US Government and NY State will be investigating Trump, his kids and their partners, his associates, his businesses and so on for decades. Watch this space.

AReasonableMan said...

Matthew Sablan said...
For example, without these investigations, we wouldn't know Obama lied to us. He knew about the server


As usual you get this wrong. Obama or his staff did send emails to Clinton but how would he know where her email server was housed or even if she had an email server? Do you know where your email server is located much less that of anyone you email?

Rene Saunce said...

How many times did Hillary's IT guy, Bryan Pagliano, plead the 5th?

David Begley said...

Absolutely nothing will come of this. Hillary is above the law.

tcrosse said...

If Hillary were indicted, it might be possible to prove that she's no longer mentally competent to stand trial. Rather than Lock H>er Up, they should Drop a Net Over H>er.

Rene Saunce said...

It wasn't an approved .gov account, ARM.


H-gal@DonateHere.Basement.net more like.

Gilbert Pinfold said...

AReasonableMan said:
Do you know where your email server is located much less that of anyone you email?

I would have thought the email address from clintonmail.com rather than state.gov would have tipped the Lightworker off that something wasn't right. But I was never elected President of the Harvard Law Review (much less editor, which is not a popularity contest like President of the HLR).

Matthew Sablan said...

"Obama or his staff did send emails to Clinton but how would he know where her email server was housed or even if she had an email server? Do you know where your email server is located much less that of anyone you email?"

Obama knew.

Earnest Prole said...

Kabuki theater. I'll believe it's a real investigation when Clinton is indicted and not until.

Matthew Sablan said...

[I note you changed the goal posts in your comment about knowing where the server was housed, not that he knew she had a separate server, which necessitated the use of a pseudonym. Excellent obfuscation, but still missing the mark.]

Meade said...

"Absolutely nothing will come of this."

Can anyone disagree that she really should lose her security clearance.

Matthew Sablan said...

Obama knew every time Clinton's email changed on her server. Obama's staff had to whitelist individual servers to allow Obama to receive them; they knew the source of Clinton's email.

LilyBart said...

One of the main reasons I voted for Trump is that it was clear that Hillary would not be held accountable for her misdeeds and corruption - both the media and much of the government is protecting her. I'm not a big pro-Trump person, but I voted for him have no regret - for all his problems, Trump is still better than an unaccountable Hillary. We cannot have a president, with all that power, who is effectively above the law.

She did mishandle classified information in violation of the law. And there does seem to be a concerning conflict of interest with the Clinton Foundation and with Bill's speechifying - and the media has a mystifying lack of curiosity about this. You Democrats want to protect her from being accountable on this? Then I'm not voting for your candidates even if Donald Trump is the alternative!

Birkel said...

ARM doesn't know from servers.

Unknown said...

Mishandling classified information?

Were Trumpski's awake a few weeks ago when Dear Leader - that is Trump - gave the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador classified information given to the US by Israel. If you think that is ok because, well, ... that is just Trump, it's the way he operates ... then you are more nuts than people give you credit for.

Secondly, Mike Pompeo, the newly minted CIA Director appointed by Dear Leader was giving Mike Flynn a full Presidential Daily Briefing even though Pompeo had been informed that Flynn was liable to Russian blackmail.

Trumpski's need to wake and smell the coffee - your anger and hate for all things not_trump makes you even more nuts than you already are.

LilyBart said...

Meade said...
Can anyone disagree that she really should lose her security clearance.


Not if they're being honest.

AReasonableMan said...

Matthew Sablan said...
Obama knew.


Nothing in your link says this. It requires a partisan reading to even think that it might. He did use a pseudonym, but so do I, although I am a very reasonable man.

Rene Saunce said...

I want Clinton to lose her Security Detail. She'll be Seth Riched in no time.

Problem solved.

LilyBart said...

Trumpski's need to wake and smell the coffee - your anger and hate for all things not_trump makes you even more nuts than you already are.

Heh - I'm not sure you lefties have much room to lecture others about out-of-control anger.

Matthew Sablan said...

... Do you really think that?

Gilbert Pinfold said...

Unknown said:

Were Trumpski's awake a few weeks ago when Dear Leader - that is Trump - gave the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador classified information given to the US by Israel. If you think that is ok because, well, ... that is just Trump, it's the way he operates ... then you are more nuts than people give you credit for.

A president can unclassify any information he wants. Just like when Obama gave the Russians the serial numbers of the Trident missiles we provided to the IK's submarine force. If you know all the serial numbers, you know exactly how large the UK's nucelar deterrent force is for targeting purposes. Like that...

Gilbert Pinfold said...

Read UK for IK above.

Matthew Sablan said...

You really, truly believe that Obama DIDN'T know that he was using a pseudonym to communicate with a non-government server and that this was because Hillary Clinton was using a private server?

Do you think Obama is a moron?

AReasonableMan said...

It is beyond ridiculous to think that the leader of the free world was responsible for keeping track of where Hillary Clinton kept her emails.

Matthew Sablan said...

Actually, his staff HAD TO keep track of where Hillary Clinton's emails came from.

AReasonableMan said...

Again, where is your email server located?

Matthew Sablan said...

WHERE doesn't matter.

Paul said...

I won't be satisfied till they appoint a SPECIAL COUNSEL to investigate Hillary and her whole stinking crew!

And make the Special Counsel a rabid Republican! What goes around.. comes around.

Matthew Sablan said...

You do understand that, right?

Matthew Sablan said...

If she had a secret server on a secure military base, it wouldn't matter. The problem was that the server was not government and not secure, not just that she had it somewhere it shouldn't be.

Original Mike said...

As much as she deserves to be in prison, I don't think all the energy that would be expended to put her there would be well spent. But it is offensive in the extreme that she still holds a security clearance. Clinton displayed absolutely zero sense of reponsibilty towards the government information with which she was entrusted. Her clearance should be revoked as acknowledgement of this.

Michael K said...

but hey, 'Lock her up'. 'Lock her up'.

OK.

I think Trump's gambit now is to get Rudy appointed special prosecutor to investigate Hillary.

Give Democrats something else to think about.

clint said...

It never ends? Did this investigation ever actually start?

According to Comey's sworn testimony, the Attorney General ordered that whatever was done before not be called an "investigation" but rather a "matter".

It's about time we had an investigation into these serious allegations.

Chris Low said...

Forget party politics for just a minute. This is really important. We Americans have a tradition of forgiving and forgetting transgressions by past Administrations. We also have a tradition of letting precedent supersede law. If the State Department does not conduct this investigation, no future Sec of State will be bound by the rules of conduct he promises to uphold. Given how much classified info leaked from HRC's email stream, the private-server precedent must be nullified, not as a gotcha of Hilary but as a preventative against a similar breach in the future.

MikeR said...

I don't understand this: the State Department Inspector General's report already concluded that they followed inappropriate procedures and broke the rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#May_2016_report_from_State_Department.27s_inspector_general
I guess that report didn't focus on classified documents, that was left to the FBI. Now they're picking it up again?

Dr Weevil said...

It is beyond beyond ridiculous to think that the leader of the free world was not responsible for making sure he had a Secretary of State capable of using and enforcing the most basic minimal forms of secure communication.

AReasonableMan said...

Matthew Sablan said...
WHERE doesn't matter.


So you have no clue where the server that you are using is located? The name of the server is plastic, it can be given a range of names, what was relevant with Clinton's email was its location, in a potentially non-secure location.

Tommy Duncan said...

"It is beyond ridiculous to think that the leader of the free world was responsible for keeping track of where Hillary Clinton kept her emails."

Hillary was Secretary of State, not an inconsequential position. Hillary was 4th in line for Presidential succession and in possession of America's most secret information.

Perhaps a computer illiterate President cannot be expected on his own to know Hillary had an illicit server. But certainly the President's staff had a duty to inform him of that fact and the danger it posed to national security.

The idea Obama did not know about Hillary's server is beyond plausible deniability.

Matthew Sablan said...

"The name of the server is plastic, it can be given a range of names, what was relevant with Clinton's email was its location, in a potentially non-secure location."

-- No. The problem was that she wasn't supposed to have it. It doesn't matter WHERE she put it. Just like if you're not supposed to have a gun; it doesn't matter if you keep it at your office, your car, your person, your house, your Aunt Mabel's house. The location doesn't matter, just that you have it.

What was relevant is that Obama lied to us; he knew about the secret server, and in fact, took steps to hide his identity on it to reduce the risk of being found on it. What is relevant is Clinton used it to discuss things that should not have been talked about on an unsecure server... Wait, you don't think a server is secure solely based on physical location and not... actual technology used to protect it... right?

James K said...

what was relevant with Clinton's email was its location, in a potentially non-secure location.

ARM seems to believe that servers get hacked by someone breaking in and opening it up with a screwdriver or something.

Location is irrelevant. It could be located in Siberia, but if it's connected to the internet and not sufficiently secured it can be hacked.

Curious George said...

"AReasonableMan said...

Nothing in your link says this. It requires a partisan reading to even think that it might. He did use a pseudonym, but so do I, although I am a very reasonable man."

You use a pseudonym in email to people you know? To people that work with you? FOr you?

Liar.

Curious George said...

ARM is the poster child of dishonest lefties. They pretend to believe and want all to believe these stupid "dog ate my homework" excuses.

Rocketeer said...

Wait, you don't think a server is secure solely based on physical location and not... actual technology used to protect it... right?

ARM may be awhile responding. The wifi is slow at the livery stable/buggy repair shop.

Virtually Unknown said...

Colin Powell transmitted his correspondent to an internet perv's computer so that his maid could print it more easily, I am almost certain.

Rene Saunce said...

The Clintons owe a lot of dark shadowy characters a lot of favors. She lost, and those favors will not ever be paid.

This is why she is desperate to keep her profile high - give the illusion she still might have a chance to run against Trump in 2020 and be our super hero. It's not about us, it's about keeping the money and the mob, happy. They are not happy.

Virtually Unknown said...

what was relevant with Clinton's email was its location, in a potentially non-secure location.

What was relevant was that the only way that Hillary could have the final word, over Congress, which has Constitutional oversight responsibilities, BTW. over what got deleted was if she had the server under her control. It's almost as if she didn't respect the Constitution or something.....

Virtually Unknown said...

The real threat, of course, per ARM, was the Russians sneaking up to the server and putting in a 5 1/4 inch floppy, and stealing files before slinking on over the Donnie Trump's place for vodka martinis.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Hillary Clinton's emails are about the only thing that didn't leak in the city that leaks like a sieve. Trump should put her in charge of information security.

Virtually Unknown said...

Getting email from POTUS Halo on that server is what kept Hillary from being indicted.

AReasonableMan said...

At the time, Obama's spokesperson, Josh Earnest, said...
The President, as I think many people expected, did over the course of his first several years in office trade emails with his Secretary of State. I would not describe the number of emails as large, but they did have the occasion to email one another. And the point that the President was making is not that he didn’t know Secretary Clinton’s email address -- he did -- but he was not aware of the details of how that email address and that server had been set up or how Secretary Clinton and her team were planning to comply with the Federal Records Act.


This would be the commonsense understanding about how lawyers, like Obama, who know little or nothing about computer technology would perceive the situation. To deviate from this commonsense understanding would require evidence beyond anything presented to date.

The Drill SGT said...

Having held a TS clearance with SCI access off and on as needed for the last 46+ years, I have a fair understanding of security processes. Further, I've been a TS document custodian, a Nuclear codes custodian, a COMSEC custodian, an ISSO and a FSO.

1. In theory it is reasonable for a former SecState to continue to hold a clearance after she leaves the office, particularly when the same party continues to hold the WH. There may be need for consultations, etc.

2. But Huma and the rest of the crew are not Principals in diplomacy, just minions. Their access should have ended long ago, without Hillary.com

3. The normal process, when there is an alleged security incident, is to immediately investigate, and get statements from all concerned. Anyone who does not immediately and willingly provide the whole truth gets their clearance suspended, pending termination of employment and clearance.

4. Obviously, in this case, the players did not provide the whole truth instantly.

5. If the "Incident" turns into a "violation" steps are taken, up to and including termination.

Hillary's gang were treated as though the rules did not apply.

Matthew Sablan said...

"And the point that the President was making is not that he didn’t know Secretary Clinton’s email address -- he did -- but he was not aware of the details of how that email address and that server had been set up or how Secretary Clinton and her team were planning to comply with the Federal Records Act."

-- Then he is lying or a failure.

The answer, of course, is that he is lying, because his staff KNEW that Clinton was previously told by the government NOT to set up a server because it could NOT be made to comply with records law. If you want to believe Earnest, that's fine. But it requires you to assume the investigation, Abedin and Obama all lied to us.

AReasonableMan said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...
Hillary Clinton's emails are about the only thing that didn't leak in the city that leaks like a sieve. Trump should put her in charge of information security.


Clinton's server, unlike many of the government's servers, was not hacked. So access would have had to be physical, in the absence of evidence that it was hacked. Her server should have been in a more secure location, no one disagrees on this.

AReasonableMan said...

Matthew Sablan said...
Then he is lying or a failure.


In your highly partisan opinion.

Matthew Sablan said...

[Also, remember, Obama's staff routinely received updates about Clinton's changing e-mail and details about her server to ensure it was white listed. No reasonable person can assume his staff did not know about her server.]

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Meade said...Can anyone disagree that she really should lose her security clearance.

I'd modify that to "should have already lost," but otherwise no, no reasonable objective person can disagree.


AReasonableMan said...So you have no clue where the server that you are using is located? The name of the server is plastic, it can be given a range of names, what was relevant with Clinton's email was its location, in a potentially non-secure location.

Uh, ARM, are you saying the physical location of the server itself is the only thing that matters when determining whether "her emails!" were secure or not? The email system itself was insecure. The physical location of the server is a part of the security question, but only a small part. You're not really arguing that if the hardware was in a secure place (like, say, the bathroom of a private home) then the system itself was secure, are you?

Matthew Sablan said...

"In your highly partisan opinion."

-- No. He is either lying, and knew what the facts shows he knew, or he failed in following up about obvious problems ("Hey, sir. We told our employee not to do X. We know they are doing X." // "Eh, it's just the security of the government. Let's let it ride.")

Those are your two options. Did Obama willingly neglect an obvious problem, or do you think that he knew what he was doing (emailing a non-secure server)?

Matthew Sablan said...

I'm open to other possibilities, but they have to acknowledge and not run contrary to the known facts.

Fen said...

Hillary needs to be investigated because her secret server scandal ensnared presidential hopeful Terry McCaulif.

Virtually Unknown said...

Clinton's server, unlike many of the government's servers, was not hacked. - ARM

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/us/hillary-clintons-email-was-probably-hacked-experts-say.html

AReasonableMan said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...
Uh, ARM, are you saying the physical location of the server itself is the only thing that matters when determining whether "her emails!" were secure or not? The email system itself was insecure. The physical location of the server is a part of the security question, but only a small part. You're not really arguing that if the hardware was in a secure place (like, say, the bathroom of a private home) then the system itself was secure, are you?


Ridiculous attempt to create strawman.

AReasonableMan said...

probably - weasel word

Fen said...

OMG he really IS arguing that the issue is whether the physical location was secure.

Yes ARM, the bathroom storage closet had a deadbolt lock.

William said...

Bill Cosby will die a free man and with his wealth intact. Hillary Clinton will die a revered public servant and with her security clearance inviolate. This sublunar world is not famous for dispensing justice......Meryl Streep portrayed Ethel Rosenberg as a beatific presence and Margaret Thatcher as a demented old woman. History will remember Hillary fondly.

Virtually Unknown said...

This would be the commonsense understanding about how lawyers, like Obama, who know little or nothing about computer technology would perceive the situation.

Yes, to paraphrase Comey, who in this clown show even has a clue that they are committing a crime? Nobody! Obama made the classic error of trusting Hillary and that in itself proves the same kind of lack of "mens rea" that he used to let Hillary off the hook.

AReasonableMan said...

Fen said...
OMG


Another ridiculous attempt to create strawman. You guys seem to be losing this one badly given the strawman to thoughtful post ratio.

Virtually Unknown said...

Probably - weasel word

Actually, that's how careful thinkers speak, not in absolutes, as you did with your "was not hacked."

Matthew Sablan said...

ARM: You're the one who is focused on the physical location.

"Do you know where your email server is located much less that of anyone you email?"

"It is beyond ridiculous to think that the leader of the free world was responsible for keeping track of where Hillary Clinton kept her emails."

"Again, where is your email server located?"

"So you have no clue where the server that you are using is located? The name of the server is plastic, it can be given a range of names, what was relevant with Clinton's email was its location, in a potentially non-secure location. "

MikeR said...

@ARM "Clinton's server, unlike many of the government's servers, was not hacked."
The FBI report made clear that they have no way of knowing whether or not it was hacked. Various security experts have made clear their opinion that it would have been hacked, though they have no direct information.
That's a little different from what you said.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

ARM said...Clinton's server, unlike many of the government's servers, was not hacked. So access would have had to be physical, in the absence of evidence that it was hacked. Her server should have been in a more secure location, no one disagrees on this

Holy shit, you are arguing that. Wow, ARM, that's...that's something.

Given that choice of argument I'm not sure there's a productive discussion to be had on this one, so I'll just assert: 1.)"we" don't know her server wasn't hacked--the publicly-available info is that there aren't any obvious traces of that but that in the even of a sophisticated intrusion there might not be any, so we don't know 2.) the access would absolutely not need to be physical--an attacker with knowledge of the server could intercept or redirect outbound and inbound traffic in all sorts of clever ways 3.) the server itself apparently used a very low level of security for most of the time it was active--the IT guy who set up and maintained the system was a private hire (by Clinton) and not a government-provided IT security expert 4.) even assuming the server/system was not compromised it's a huge security breach to set it up and use it for secure communications at all!

Anyway, I don't have much hope of changing the mind of anyone who thinks that the physical security of the hardware is the only important factor in weighing whether "Hillary's emails" were secure...and sadly it sounds like that might include ARM.

Matthew Sablan said...

"This would be the commonsense understanding about how lawyers, like Obama, who know little or nothing about computer technology would perceive the situation."

-- Except... we know Obama's staff (and therefore, he himself), had to whitelist Clinton's server. He had to log in to her server, create a pseudonym, and email her.

Are you really arguing he somehow, despite knowing Clinton was told not to do this, decided to just not follow up with why he was connecting to a non-government email server and communicating with Clinton non-securely using an alias?

MayBee said...

It seems she's gotten a pass because the DOJ/FBI just can't believe a Secretary of State would have ill intent when sharing classified information. So they write it off as a mistake, or sloppy handling or whatever.

Which might make sense, except in a world where the same DOJ/FBI is making noise about a sitting president being in collusion with Russia.

William said...

Michael Flynn was fired because he lied about his contact with the Russians, and these lies made him subject to blackmail by the Russians.....Is it conceivable that Huma Abedin or her husband, Anthony Weiner, could ever engage in activities that would be subject to blackmail? Anthony Weiner was a honey trap seeking drone. I wonder if any of his sext mates had an ISP located in Moscow, particularly that fourteen year old one with the double D's. Worth looking into.

AReasonableMan said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...
I don't have much hope of changing the mind of anyone who thinks that the physical security of the hardware is the only important factor in weighing whether


Another ridiculous strawman, this is getting pathetic.

Matthew Sablan said...

You're making a similar argument of "Obama didn't know," that would be laughed out of court if any other CEO's staff acted like this and the CEO tried to claim, "I didn't know."

He emailed her on a secret server using a pseudonym, not from his official email. The only way for him to do that is for him to take knowing acts to do it. Or, of course, his staff could have secretly set it up and never told him, at which point, we're at the same problem you have with the above CEO.

How much benefit of the doubt are you REALLY going to give that guy that everyone acted in secret around him to create a perfect bubble of secrecy so that he could act with clean hands?

Virtually Unknown said...

In a former life, I sometimes was called upon to answer sections of RFPs, (Requests for Proposals) regarding data security. I can tell you that the bathroom might have been OK, given her level of Secret Service protection, but there should have been layers of other devices running various classes of software surrounding the server. Stuff that would log hacking attempts, for one thing. Server security logs documenting that the "server was not hacked" never seemed to be forthcoming. Staff tasked with monitoring the system, stuff like that.

There is a simple rule, if there should be evidence and it is missing, and yet a Clinton claims something, you can bet that the Clinton is lying.

exhelodrvr1 said...

I doubt that they will charge her with crimes, even though she deserves it. That isn't a high enough priority for the admin's time and energy. But she should definitely lose her security clearance, and that would be symbolically significant.

AReasonableMan said...

Matthew Sablan said...
You're making a similar argument of "Obama didn't know," that would be laughed out of court if any other CEO's staff acted like this and the CEO tried to claim,


You are apparently unfamiliar with the attempted prosecutions of the CEO's of financial institutions after the Great Bush Financial Crisis.

Tank said...

Why isn't she in jail already?

Virtually Unknown said...

A "reasonable man" would be forced to conclude that there is no way to know whether her server was hacked or not, which is a security problem in an of itself. A "partisan man" can make absolute statements for which there is no support.

Matthew Sablan said...

"You are apparently unfamiliar with the attempted prosecutions of the CEO's of financial institutions after the Great Bush Financial Crisis."

-- In any of those was the argument: "I didn't know that there was a thing," and the counter evidence was, "Here is you using the thing?"

Because... if it wasn't, I don't see the parallel to your vague nonsequitor.

Matthew Sablan said...

Is the argument in any of them, "I didn't know my subordinate was doing a thing," and the counter evidence, "Here is you talking to your subordinate using the thing you claim you didn't know they were using?"

Matthew Sablan said...

In any of these cases, did someone communicate with a person they claimed not to have communicated with in a given way while using a pseudonym to hide their identity in case anyone looked at the communications?

In what way is this like what you are talking about -- whatever that is?

AReasonableMan said...

Virtually Unknown said...
A "reasonable man" would be forced to conclude that there is no way to know whether her server was hacked or not,


Another strawman.

Virtually Unknown said...

Another strawman

Sorry, catch me up. Your last statement on the matter seemed to be that the "server was not hacked." Am I wrong?

Virtually Unknown said...

There was a funny scene in a movie with Janine Garafalo, when she was still funny, where she was a waitress and she said to a customer "What's it like being that stupid? Is it like being high all the time?" I can't imagine what brought that scene to mind just now.

Yancey Ward said...

The review is the first step to stripping the security clearances of all of Hillary's staff who exited to her campaign. It is long overdue. I imagine the same is going to happen to all of Obama's staff who were aware of the private server.

ARM, I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you literally know nothing about e-mail addresses and government servers. Every single time Clinton migrated to a different server, the people running Obama's presidential account would have been alerted the first time she sent him an e-mail from that new server. Every single time he e-mailed her, the e-mail address itself would have alerted anyone with rudimentary knowledge of such things that the e-mail account wasn't on a government server.

Yes, one might not divine the location of the server, but one would certainly know it wasn't a proper State Department government server- that is the relevant thing- not the physical location, but even that was almost surely known to the people responsible for the security of Obama's own e-mail account with just a cursory investigation. Really, how do you think they knew it was the authentic Clinton account in the first place? When you are responsible for the security of the president's e-mail account, you do not just take someone's description at face value.

Or are you one of those people who fall for every single phishing e-mail?

MayBee said...

I know this thought isn't original to me, but Obama made very public statements about Hillary doing no wrong. Can we compare that to all the "trouble" Trump is in?

AReasonableMan said...

Yancey Ward said...
Yes, one might not divine the location of the server, but one would certainly know it wasn't a proper State Department government server- that is the relevant thing- not the physical location, but even that was almost surely known to the people responsible for the security of Obama's own e-mail account with just a cursory investigation. Really, how do you think they knew it was the authentic Clinton account in the first place? When you are responsible for the security of the president's e-mail account, you do not just take someone's description at face value.


Finally, a few reasonable points, only it is all supposition on your part regarding what Obama actually knew, which is my only argument here.

Kevin said...

Leftists on investigating Hillary: "This is beyond stupid given how many pointless investigations there have already been, but hey, 'Lock her up'. 'Lock her up'."

Leftists on investigating Trump: "What's up with that hotel in Azerbaijan?"

HoodlumDoodlum said...

AReasonableMan said...Another ridiculous strawman, this is getting pathetic.

I mean, I asked a question, ARM, and you seemed to answer it in a response to another commenter. But to be fair I'll ask it again:
Do you believe that the physical security of the hardware (the server) is the main factor determining how secure "Hillary's emails" were? Assuming you answer no, 1.) why were you emphasizing that (the hardware security) earlier and 2.) on what do you base the your seeming assertion that the server was not hacked nor was any traffic going to or from the server intercepted?

Matthew Sablan said...

"Finally, a few reasonable points, only it is all supposition on your part regarding what Obama actually knew, which is my only argument here."

-- We know what Obama knew; he knew she was using a non-government email, and we know he communicated using a pseudonym on that same server. If you claim neither of those are truly known, you just are not operating off the facts that exist.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

MayBee said...I know this thought isn't original to me, but Obama made very public statements about Hillary doing no wrong. Can we compare that to all the "trouble" Trump is in?

Not a whiff of scandal, not a hit of corruption.

Look, I think a focus on Obama is misguided. He and his staff knew or should have known that they were communicating with Hillary and her people outside of .gov addresses and if those communications involved sensitive info that's bad (and possibly criminal), but the President's power to make personal determinations regarding what's secret and what isn't is so broad I doubt there'd me much legal remedy even with a "smoking gun" showing Obama knew he was violating a rule. Also, who really cares--it might be good to punish wrongdoing by people still in government but otherwise Obama's gone, baby.
Hillary, though, still holds a security clearance and there is the matter of the precedent being set for how Cabinet members are supposed to act w/r/t respecting government regulations and laws designed to protect national secrets (and prevent harm, etc). That's worth pursuing.

Kevin said...

We know what Obama knew; he knew she was using a non-government email, and we know he communicated using a pseudonym on that same server.

And we know he was never asked about it under oath. Let's not forget it was Team Obama who told the world about Hillary's server in the first place.

I'm for running down the leads with Russia in the last election, but then again I'm for running down the leads regardless of party.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Unknown said...
Mishandling classified information?

Were Trumpski's awake

Are you?



Yancey Ward said...
ARM, I will give you the benefit of the doubt here

Yancey, why bother? ARM is arguing trash. You're wasting your time with him.

Michael K said...

You guys seem to be losing this one badly given the strawman to thoughtful post ratio.

I think we are reaching peak ARM here today.

It is hilarious. Defending Obama and Hillary while Obama's minions claim the Susan Rice lies are undiscoverable because the records are in Obama's unbuilt Presidential Library.

This is getting into "Twilight Zone" territory.

Virtually Unknown said...

ut the President's power to make personal determinations regarding what's secret and what isn't is so broad I doubt there'd me much legal remedy even with a "smoking gun" showing Obama knew he was violating a rule.

Yeah, there was no legal jeopardy there, just an unwanted collision with the narrative. Why use a pseudonym when you are POTUS talking to SOS unless you believe that the channel is not secure?

Yancey Ward said...

ARM,

One can claim Obama didn't know by basically calling him a moron. Even worse, you have to assume all of his staff were morons, too, including those responsible for his e-mail's security. That being the case is unreasonable to believe.

Also, that Obama uses a pseudonym when sending e-mail to Clinton's server is prima facie evidence he knew it wasn't appropriate to be communicating government business over that account, but didn't want to force the issue since she was his SoS after all.

MayBee said...

Why use a pseudonym when you are POTUS talking to SOS unless you believe that the channel is not secure?

Ha!!

JAORE said...

"The name of the server is plastic, it can be given a range of names, what was relevant with Clinton's email was its location, in a potentially non-secure location. "

Here is a super-secret clue that I am at risk of imprisonment by revealing:

Despite the"plastic" nature (LOL) of the name of the server, an official/actual/legitimate Federal E-MAIL ACCOUNT ends in ".gov"

Shhhhh, don't let the Ruskies know.

Rocketeer said...

Calling every convincing argument Matthew has presented you with a "strawman" does not make them so. You may as well just put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes tightly and say "LALALALALALALALALA" loudly; it's just as legitimate a defense of your position as what you've put forth thus far.

AReasonableMan said...

Yancey Ward said...
One can claim Obama didn't know


No, one has to demonstrate that Obama should reasonably have shown any interest in where Clinton's emails come from. It would not be unreasonable for him to assume that they were legitimate in every respect, given the level of staff and support that she had. The pseudonym is not proof of any kind, people use pseudonyms all the time when dealing with email. I have multiple email accounts that I use for different purposes.

Unknown said...

I think the issue at this point is whether those ative clearances should be revoked, as an ongoing security issue, last November's election notwithstanding.

Fen said...

Can someone explain to me why Obama Staff and Clinton Staff stop have security clearances to begin with?

When I was in the Marines I had a secret clearance for SORTS data. When my Company attached to 31st MEU, it was Special Operations Capable (MEU-SOC) because it did some Secret Squirrel stuff. The commander yanked the clearances of anyone outside of these special ops. Made sense to me - I was not going to be doing SORTS on ship. And if didn't have a need to know, you're clearance was extraneous. And when we returned to 29 Palms, my clearance was restored.

So why does Obama or Hillary or any of their staff need security clearances? Maybe the civilian side works differently, but it just seems like an unnecessary risk.

AReasonableMan said...

JAORE said...
an official/actual/legitimate Federal E-MAIL ACCOUNT ends in ".gov"


Obama did not send any classified information to that non .gov account so this is irrelevant. He, not unreasonably, assumed that email server that Clinton was using reached some reasonable level of security for the few non-classified emails that he sent.

Original Mike said...

"only it is all supposition on your part regarding what Obama actually knew, which is my only argument here."

While it may be supposition as to what Obama knew, there can be no doubt as to what Hillary knew. It's a travesty she still has a security clearance.

Seeing Red said...

If it wasn't on TV, Obama didn't know.

Fen said...

Obama is receiving emails from a Secretary of State who's email address does not end in .gov ? Is he an idiot?

"Comrades, watch as I get the President of the United States to send the 7th Fleet to Antartica..."

"LOL Vlad, 100 rubles if you can get him to drop sanctions on Iran"

"Ah Petrov, you have no imagination. Recommend he call for a U.N. Security Council meeting to discuss the approach of a Romulan Armada orbiting Saturn"

"Haha yes yes do that one!"

Yancey Ward said...

ARM,

When you receive e-mails from your credit card company, how do you know it is authentic? Or do you show no interest in the matter?

Given the facts- it is completely unreasonable to believe he didn't know. He did know, he just didn't care enough to do something about it, which one might believe is reasonable or not. It does appear he wasn't foolish enough to use his own name when conversing on it, or sending sensitive material to it- for that he gets some credit, which is something she does not.

Darrell said...

Hillary would like you to know that she's up by at least 50 points in the 2020 election. And since Comey stated that the FBI's Prime Directive is (and always has been) to never do anything to influence/interfere in an election, she can not now be investigated.

Fen said...

ARM, how do you know what Obama sent?

Darrell said...

ARM, how do you know what Obama sent?

He reads the DU and Kos.

Yancey Ward said...

As I wrote above- this review isn't going to lead to any criminal complaints. I suspect it is being done as the first step to revoking the security clearances of the people involved, many of whom still work in the executive branch today. There are going to be a lot of Obama hires and appointees who are going to be out of a job by the end of the year.

Virtually Unknown said...

No, one has to demonstrate that Obama should reasonably have shown any interest in where Clinton's emails come from. It would not be unreasonable for him to assume that they were legitimate in every respect, given the level of staff and support that she had. The pseudonym is not proof of any kind, people use pseudonyms all the time when dealing with email.

You use that word "reasonable" a lot. I am not sure that you know what it really means.

Virtually Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darrell said...

ARM--Obama didn't know nothing. Obama didn't do nothing.


No truer words. . .

Bruce Hayden said...

A couple of notes.

Initially, the illegal Clinton mail server was not in the bathroom in CO, but rather in Clinton's house, protected by Secret Service. It was really only when it was shut down, presumably after she left office as Sec of State, that it was moved. And, yes, that too was illegal, because it contained classified information. We know this, because it was the original "squirrel" or attempted diversion. When the scandal was brand new, the talking point was that the server WAS secure because it essentially had Secret Service protection. So, no, while Crooked Hillary was actually using her illegal email server to conduct ALL of her official (and personal) business, the Russians, the Chinese, etc, couldnt just walk up, and back the email on to diskettes. Later, of course, after she left office, was a different story.

But physical access was never really the major threat to the classified information on the illegal email server. The server was, by necessity (and, yes, illegally, because it contained classified information) connected to the Internet. That is where the real threat was - that someone, whether a foreign power, or individuals, would gain access to the server, and then download all her emails, and, it turns out, emails from some of her minions who also had accounts there. ARM says that there was no evidence that her server got hacked. But, of course, absence of evidence of hacking is not the same as absence of hacking, esp, as here, where there were insufficient mechanisms in place to detect any hacking. Tree falling in the forest, etc. Our govt secure servers have all sorts of security systems and software that not only helps prevent intrusions, but also logs every thing that happens, every access, every failure, etc. and, there, you can much more realistically claim that absence of evidence of intrusion means absence of intrusion. But those mechanisms that would have recorded attempts at intrusion were essentially missing on Clinton's email server. Oh, and add that for awhile, after the server went live, and she started using it for work related email, they apparently were not overly diligent about keeping security updates current. Which means that known exploits could be used to acces her system.

Was her email system hacked? We don't know, and the most likely culprits (state actors) aren't talking. And, hence Trump's unfortunate joke about asking Putin about the contents of her email server, because if anyone was able to access her server, it was most likely a hostile govt, notably the Russians, Chinese, NORKs, etc, and it is to their advantage to both know what she knew, and not let us know that they knew. Could they have hacked her server? Probably? Would they have? Likely. We would have done it to them if the tables had been turned. Would they have known of her server? I think likely. DNS records are public. They have to be for DNS to work. Clintonmail.com is just too obvious to ignore. Bill Clinton is a former President. Crooked Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State at the time. Yes, there are other Clintons in the world, but... Was it worth a shot trying to hack it? Of course. No evidence that they changed the standard POP, IMAP, and SMTP ports, and capturing even one email would give them enough information to know what software was running on the system, which translates into how best to penetrate the system. As I said, if the situation had been reversed, the NSA would have penetrated her email system in short order, so, why should we assume that the Russians, Chinese, etc didn't do the same?

Earnest Prole said...

ARM is trolling y'all, like when Hillary talked about wiping her server with a cloth.

Bad Lieutenant said...

ARM is always trolling. ARM is a troll pure and simple.

Rene Saunce said...

Intent. It was all about her intention to hide what she was doing. She risked state business and confidential classified records and information on a private server and she did it to hide her side deals and personal enrichment business.

Because, she's so transparent and stuff.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Good point, Virtually Unknown: why would President Obama use a pseudonym in his email communication with his Secretary of State? What purpose would that serve?

Anyway I don't care much about Obama's role in any of that. Clinton's lies are so obvious ("it was done for convenience and not to facilitate illegally hiding official records) that it's close to pointless to even discuss.
I guess I was just surprised to see someone like ARM seem to adopt such an obviously-wrong position. Maybe, as some commenters are asserting, he was doing so as a troll tactic. Either way I'll update my expectations (in a bayesian sense).

AReasonableMan said...

Bad Lieutenant said...
ARM is


Calling someone a troll is being a troll. I merely questioned Matthew Sablan's unverifiable claims regarding Obama. That is not being a troll.

Virtually Unknown said...

Calling someone a troll is being a troll.

So you are calling him a troll? I notice you do that a lot. I guess you should know.

Bad Lieutenant said...

^^^ Hey! Tu quoque!

It's always the same with you. Do you prefer sophist?

You bring nothing to the table. Your loss would only improve the blog.

Bad Lieutenant said...

haha VU slipped in between us

Rocketeer said...

Do you prefer sophist?

Sophistry requires cleverness in addition to fallaciousness.

Troll's the right word.

Rene Saunce said...

The left want to scapegoat the Russians. What brought Hillary down? - Hillary, and her greed.

AReasonableMan said...

The losers are getting bitter. Bitter is not a good look, even on old men.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Anybody remember "incurious?" The biggest single indictment of GWBush? In any organizational email system, in Outlook, say, the internal directories present internal email addresses in a certain way, say, BLOW Joe (EXT) IbidPobSka , or a mailing list, like Blue-Ribbon-Bullshit-Committee

So when you send out a mail to a bunch of people and the To: or CC: list reads like:

PUBLIC John RamaLamaDingDong; PUBLIC Jane MooShuPork; OBAMA Barack EasyBreezyPreezy; KERRY John NutsButtsFutz; Pad-Thai-State-Dept-Working-Group; hrc22@turd.punchbowl; ABEDIN Huma SosGoferFemLez; WEINER Anthony YouTrustDisGuy?; PELOSI Nancy MoreBotoxPleez; ...

The turd in the punchbowl should jump out at anyone with eyes. "Hey, that's not a USG address! Who the hell is that? How did that name get on this list for the launch codes?"

"Oh, it's OK, Mr. President. See, that's Hillary Clinton's email."

"WTF? Why doesn't she have a .gov email like all of us?"

"Uh..."

See, it's nonsense. ARM is flailing wildly. If Obama had eyes, he would have seen that something is queer. You can't seriously believe or propound this theory that he wouldn't have known. It's preposterous. And ARM knows it's preposterous, but is sucking oxygen out of the room with his prepostery. And he knows it and revels in it.

Good one ARM, that's 150 seconds of my life I'll never get back. Now pray have the goodness to die.

Bad Lieutenant said...

AReasonableMan said...
The losers are getting bitter. Bitter is not a good look, even on old men.

How true. But you came so close! Just another $25 million and you were there! Buck up old chum, the rich windows of Marin County haven't given up on you yet, surely.

Bruce Hayden said...

Let me add something on the Clinton server getting behind on security updates. There is, and has been for a long time, a running war between hackers and those trying to prevent hacking. Between the black hats and the white hats. The hackers, the black hats, try to break into computer systems. The other side tries to prevent that, or when the hackers find an exploit, patch it ASAP. Some of the black hats, when they discover a new exploit, or hole in a security system, use it to download email, acquire credit card information, etc, but more often probably, they sell their exploit on the dark web, and purchasers of the exploit do the dirty work of stealing credit cards, etc. Of course, the white hats (along with national govts) are in there bidding for the exploits, along with other hackers. Eventually, the white hats get their hands on such, develop patches and countermeasures, which get promulgated to servers around the world for installation as updates. The result is that known exploits have a logarithmic decay - the longer the time, the fewer the number of systems that are vulnerable to an exploit or hack. But that also means that the longer you delay updating software, the more known exploits won't have been patched. And, as I noted above, national govts are in there bidding for the exploits, but having the advantage that they can print money to pay for such. Plus, at least for us, our white hats keep the NSA in the loop of any exploits they find, either that they discover first, or were discovered first by the black hats.

The relevance here is that the illegal Clinton email server was running commercial software, which meant that the exploits found for that software very, very likely ended up in less than benign hands. A lot of well managed systems may be vulnerable to specific exploits for a day or so. Maybe less. Maybe a bit more. But, there is a decent likelihood that the illegal Clinton email server was vulnerable for much longer, potentially for months. And the longer that a system remains unpatched and unupdated, the more parties are going to have acquired any given exploit.

Another note - the hacking ranges from gray to black. If you are good at it in this country, you can probably expect the FBI to ultimately come knocking at your door. This is not the case elsewhere in the world, where there seems to be some sort of benign neglect in some places. Part of it may be the corruptiblity, or bribability, of the local officials. Maybe not surprisingly, a lot of it is done in the former Soviet republics. These are very typically independents, not officially working for the Russian govt, making a living selling their hacking to top bidders around the world. Private enterprise at work. But, there is some likelihood that their freedom to operate may sometimes come at a price of keeping the Kremlin up to date on the latest hacking tools and exploits. Of course, most everyone knows about Russian hackers, which is probably why the CIA uses Russian hacking fingerprints to hide its own hacking. And why Russian hacking fingerprints don't necessarily, and often don't, mean Russian hacking.

Mike said...

History will remember Hillary fondly.

The people who lived through it will not.

madAsHell said...

Hilarious!! Someone is still using the clintonemail.com name.

Domain Name: CLINTONEMAIL.COM
Registry Domain ID: 1537310173_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Registrar URL: http://networksolutions.com
Updated Date: 2017-03-05T15:08:04Z
Creation Date: 2009-01-13T05:00:00Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2022-01-13T05:00:00Z
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
Registrar IANA ID: 2
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@web.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8003337680
Reseller:
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Registry Registrant ID:
Registrant Name: PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC
Registrant Organization:
Registrant Street: 12808 Gran Bay Parkway West
Registrant City: Jacksonville
Registrant State/Province: FL
Registrant Postal Code: 32258
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.5707088780
Registrant Phone Ext:

There are tools for identifying the location of a server. This is the output from "whois".

Interesting creation date.....no??

Murph said...

Forget Obama. He's virtually untouchable, and wouldn't we rather he and Michelle just disappear from the headlines? Let him dissolve into obsolescence. It's Hillary, and Hillary's aiding and abetting staff that needs to be held accountable.

Re: Hillary email system/server hacking. And it's from Politico, so it *must* be accurate!

"8. A wall is breached

In January 2013, the Clinton server saw what the FBI determined was its only known “successful compromise.” According to the FBI’s forensic investigation later, on January 5, the account of a member of Bill Clinton’s staff—who all shared the server with Hillary’s email—was broken into by someone using the anonymizing software Tor. Over the course of the day, three known Tor IP addresses accessed the site and the intruder browsed through the staffer’s email folders and attachments. The FBI said it was “unable to identify the actor(s) responsible,” but that the damage, as far as it could tell, was limited to that lone staffer’s email that one day."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-emails-2016-server-state-department-fbi-214307

Michael K said...

"The losers are getting bitter. Bitter is not a good look, even on old men."

Isn't it funny how the incompetent Trump keeps stumbling into these big wins ?

I remember the great line from "Casablanca," about the "blundering Americans.

Captain Renault: We musn't underestimate "American blundering". I was with them when they "blundered" into Berlin in 1918.


Poor blundering Trump who keeps blundering into winning.

Virtually Unknown said...

What exactly did we lose? Who is bitter? I am not bitter that Hillary is not in jail and I am extremely happy that she is not POTUS.

There are losers aplenty today too, but I don't think it's us. I think the old Wheel of Fortune in the mythical sense, is on the positive side for us "old people" these days. Waiting for your opposition to die is a fools game too, because by the time we do, you will have a generation who can't wait for you to die, and with your policies, I can guarantee that they will, and the possibility that saddled with all of that debt, they may take matters into their own hands. We tried to help you. Remember that.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Virtually Unknown said...
What exactly did we lose? Who is bitter?


Dude/Babe, you're falling for it. He. Is. Trolling. You. Put it another way. He is using words to hurt. He doesn't mean half the things he says. He is a worthless interlocutor. To spurn him with your bootheel is to demean your boot.

AJ Lynch said...

Clinton may actually be prosecuted?

Well Repubs are too stupid and ball-less to be behind this. So it must be a Dems who want to make sure the Crooked Clinton Crone never ever even thinks of running again.

Bad Lieutenant said...

So it must be a Dems who want to make sure the Crooked Clinton Crone never ever even thinks of running again.




Must be a white person. Obama says they'll do you like that.

MadisonMan said...

I want Clinton to lose H>er Security Detail.

Do wives (even wives in name only) of former Presidents ever lose tH>eir Security Detail?

Sebastian said...

"Hillary's gang were treated as though the rules did not apply." True, but it was worse than that: they were allowed to destroy evidence, targets were allowed to become attorneys protected by privilege, and the spouse of the prime target was allowed to communicate directly with the chief prosecutor. In other words, there was active collusion among officials to avoid holding Hill accountable.

But Trump "obstructed justice." See, we cynical conservatives are just not cynical enough.

Matthew Sablan said...

"He, not unreasonably, assumed that email server that Clinton was using reached some reasonable level of security for the few non-classified emails that he sent."

-- It is completely unreasonable to believe that he thought a server his government had said was not secure was secure.

Unknown said...

And why exactly do they still have security clearances so long after she quit? Rather unusual.

Virtually Unknown said...

If Hillary was so sure her server was secure, why did she talk about that Iranian scientist who helped us and was held by the Iranians in a code that barely rose to the level of Pig Latin? You know, the scientist who was dragged off and hanged after the emails became public, that scientist?

When they hanged him, the trap door opened to the memory hole.

AReasonableMan said...

Matthew Sablan said...
a server his government had said was not secure


When did this happen?

Bad Lieutenant said...

Matt, don't answer him. You can't teach a pig to sing.

AReasonableMan said...

Yeah Matt, it's a trap. Good thinking BL. Asking someone to justify a statement, that's always a trap.

Virtually Unknown said...

The release of Clinton’s emails last year by the State Department appeared to have been damning for Amiri. A number of emails sent to the then secretary of state appeared to support claims that he was a defector. “Our friend has to be given a way out. We should recognise his concerns and frame it in terms of a misunderstanding with no malevolent intent and that we will make sure there is no recurrence. Our person won’t be able to do anything anyway. If he has to leave, so be it,” wrote one senior official to Clinton

“Following the reported revelations in the Clinton emails, Amiri was executed for spying,” said Dina Esfandiary, MacArthur fellow at the centre for science and security studies at King’s College London. “In the Iranian judiciary’s mind, it’s a necessary signal to the US that Iran is aware of their activities in Iran and that this is what is done to those who help the enemy. It’s a textbook spying case.”
. - The Guardian

AReasonableMan said...

So the people who made a huge fuss about Clinton's emails managed to kill someone in the end?

dwick said...

@9:18 PM 6/21/17 PM AReasonableMan said...
So the people who made a huge fuss about Clinton's emails managed to kill someone in the end?


er, no... Hillary's decision to use her own private server for her email led to the death of someone in the end.

From cattle futures to the 2016 election, you Clinton apologists always try to blame others for the outcomes of Hillary's poor judgement - as if we're all supposed to just ignore when your Royal Cankled Highness squats down and takes a very public dump in the middle of our public streets.

Achilles said...

AReasonableMan said...
JAORE said...
an official/actual/legitimate Federal E-MAIL ACCOUNT ends in ".gov"

Obama did not send any classified information to that non .gov account so this is irrelevant. He, not unreasonably, assumed that email server that Clinton was using reached some reasonable level of security for the few non-classified emails that he sent.

1. Every communication the president makes to staff having to do with government operations is classified. If Obama didn't know that he was a fucking idiot.

2. It doesn't matter what level of security Clinton had on her private server. It was illegal. Period. Soldiers went to jail for having pictures on their personal computers. What Clinton did was so far outside the realm of reasonable activity it isn't even contemplatable by someone who worked with TS/SCI clearance material.

At some level you know how ridiculous what Clinton did is. You know any normal person would go to jail for life and she is only free because she is powerful and important. This says a lot about you.

Virtually Unknown said...

ARM, I agree with you on your point. I am guessing though that you don't agree with the FACT that since that email got somebody killed, and FACT that the Secretary of Fucking State should have known that it could get somebody killed, those communications should have been classified at the highest level. Not shared on a server that was used as much for monetizing the SOS position for fundraising purposes for her political slush fund known as the Clinton Foundation as it was for official business.

Hillary's carelessness got that guy killed.

AReasonableMan said...

Achilles said...
1. Every communication the president makes to staff having to do with government operations is classified.


Obviously not true. Much of a politician's work is gossiping and discussing political strategy. That is not government work.

Virtually Unknown said...

. "Every communication the president makes to staff having to do with government operations is classified. "

Obviously not true. Much of a politician's work is gossiping and discussing political strategy. That is not government work.


lol

Bad Lieutenant said...

Trap, tu me fais rire.

Arm, you couldn't trap if you were made of spring steel with hinged jaws and a trigger plate. No, what you are is a timesuck. I'd say a woftam but happily no dollars are harmed in the commission of your bushwah, just seconds and the occasional minute.

No grain of intellectual fodder would be missed by cutting you dead on this forum, which is what I recommend. If enough people ignore you, you'll go away, or at least change your handle.

You'll do those things, but what you won't do is shape up and play it straight. You haven't got it in you.

AReasonableMan said...

BL, you have no sensible arguments just personal attacks and a pathetic desire to shut down debate. You will tire of posting here because Althouse has no time for your mindless groupthink.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Point to something interesting you have said, ever. I'll wait.

I'd be happy for you to disappear, but I'd much prefer you to up your game. Sadly you don't understand what the game is.

AReasonableMan said...

Again, Althouse doesn't buy into your groupthink. There are a few thoughtful voices on this forum, yours is not one of them. But, if you don't like my posts, feel free to ignore them and we will both be better off.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Nobody likes your posts and if everybody ignores them we'll all be better off.

Rex Stout in the character of Nero Wolfe had you pegged 75 years ago - you're shouting now because you've just realized you are fighting for your life.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Point to something interesting you have said, ever. I'll wait.

Still waiting. But I won't hold my breath.

pathetic desire to shut down debate

Do you call what you do, debate?

AReasonableMan said...

Bad Lieutenant said...
Nobody likes your posts


I am surprised that you don't realize how pathetic you sound - a wannabe middle school mean girl who hasn't figured out how to influence the opinions of the cool kids, whose approval she desperately needs. This is why you have nothing interesting to say, too desperate to fit in.

Bad Lieutenant said...

A-way ig-fay or-fay our-yay opinion-way.

Ill-stay aiting-way.

AReasonableMan said...

Doubling down on stupid? When it's all you've got I guess you have no option.

jaed said...

Stop. Stop. One moment. Stop.

Do I understand this correctly? Is ARM asserting that the only (or even the most) important consideration in determining whether a server is secure is where the computer it's running on is physically? Its location?

AReasonableMan said...

jaed said...
Do I understand this correctly?


As usual, no.