• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Clinton Email Problem

FuckmouthedRube said:
I get the security issue, but isn't everything she sent to State Dept addresses captured anyway? Have to quantify how many emails she sent to her team's private accounts to see how much she deliberately tried to conceal. Whole thing is classic Clinton, but so will the inevitable GOP overreach ending when they go off the cliff like Wile E Couote.
Click to expand...

right.
 
WakeandBake said:
I understand that. Still doesn't explain why she and jeb cannot have their own mail servers.

Now then, USING a mail system that is more vulnerable to attack than what the government has FOR CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE is certainly something to think about.

But government computer systems don't have that great of a track record so far, knowwhatimsayin?
Click to expand...

Well, good thing I don't have that problem. Still burning through the stacks of free hours I was able to stash away in the mid 1990s on Compushare. Nobody ever bothers to hack dial-up AOL. Sly like a fox, this one.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Well, good thing I don't have that problem. Still burning through the stacks of free hours I was able to stash away in the mid 1990s on Compushare. Nobody ever bothers to hack dial-up AOL. Sly like a fox, this one.
Click to expand...

I think I remember you from the Dole '96 chat room.
 
I still don't understand why she did it. Only to be evasive?
 
If you truly wanted to hide something, why would you ever use email or voicemail? Just have a private conversation. Think that's why there's no smoking gun directly linking Christie to Bridgegate. Why manufacture evidence?
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
I still don't understand why she did it. Only to be evasive?
Click to expand...

She did it for the same reason other politicians have done it- to control what documents become public record.

Its sad that the world works this way, but it does. With an army of folks on both sides of the fence sending out FOIA requests looking for anything they can spin into a scandal, you are probably a bad politician if you don't have control over your emails.
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
If you truly wanted to hide something, why would you ever use email or voicemail? Just have a private conversation. Think that's why there's no smoking gun directly linking Christie to Bridgegate. Why manufacture evidence?
Click to expand...

right? It should be the scene in the movie 25 years from now when Hillary and her aide de camp are walking in the park talking.
 
WakeandBake said:
Im trying to figure out why Im supposed to give a shit about private mail servers for politicians. Help me out. Im in IT and have managed email servers my whole career. I have also adhered to HIPAA standards and I am the HIPAA officer for my company.
Click to expand...

1) Because the law requires those emails be available to the public through a records request.
2) Because Hillary wasn't just a "politician"...she was the SECRETARY OF STATE. The level of information she is privy to and could potentially receive on an unmanged server sitting in her garage is a bit of a step up from HIPAA. Are the government servers perfectly secure? No. Are they more secure, better monitored from attack , more reliable and less likely to be breached than Hillary's solution? Almost definitely.
 
DeaconSig said:
She did it for the same reason other politicians have done it- to control what documents become public record.
Click to expand...

Yep. This is the woman who personally held onto files during the Whitewater investigation years ago. Some of us have long memories. Fortunately, it seems that even those on the left are looking for a reason to not vote for her this time.
 
RacerDeac said:
1) Because the law requires those emails be available to the public through a records request.
2) Because Hillary wasn't just a "politician"...she was the SECRETARY OF STATE. The level of information she is privy to and could potentially receive on an unmanged server sitting in her garage is a bit of a step up from HIPAA. Are the government servers perfectly secure? No. Are they more secure, better monitored from attack , more reliable and less likely to be breached than Hillary's solution? Almost definitely.
Click to expand...

Show me the security config of both environments. Thanks in advance.

She can and should still turn over all emails in accordance with the law, who said she shouldnt?
 
DeaconSig said:
She did it for the same reason other politicians have done it- to control what documents become public record.

Its sad that the world works this way, but it does. With an army of folks on both sides of the fence sending out FOIA requests looking for anything they can spin into a scandal, you are probably a bad politician if you don't have control over your emails.
Click to expand...

That's true for her personal email, but as noted by others it isn't "her" email if she is doing company bid'ness.

Just wait until the folks at Packpride and Statefansnation figure out it is an election year.
 
WakeandBake said:
Show me the security config of both environments. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Fine, let's remove how unlikely it is that she has a more secure software environment in her home, monitored by a full-time staff, than the servers for .GOV and assume her home server was more secure from software hacking. And now let's consider just how much easier it would be to physically access and/or steal a server located in her home than one inside of a heavily controlled data center. I suppose the Secret Service is there to protect them when someone is in town, but I don't know if they keep an around the clock presence at their home when they are gone...besides, the Secret Service isn't exactly winning many awards lately, and are rumored to not be fans of Hill anyway. How easy would it be to have a spy seduce ole' Bill and gain access to the server while he passes out on a Viagra high?
 
If she testified she had turned over all and she didn't then she should be held in contempt and indicted for perjury.

I haven't trusted anything she says since she made a bunch of $$ on a one time investment in futures.
 
silk said:
If she testified she had turned over all and she didn't then she should be held in contempt and indicted for perjury.

I haven't trusted anything she says since she made a bunch of $$ on a one time investment in futures.
Click to expand...

What difference does it make? Like most first time commodities investors, she caught beginner's luck and happens to have a hobbyist's interest in information technology. All of these things are easily explainable if you just believe deeply enough.
 
RacerDeac said:
Fine, let's remove how unlikely it is that she has a more secure software environment in her home, monitored by a full-time staff, than the servers for .GOV and assume her home server was more secure from software hacking. And now let's consider just how much easier it would be to physically access and/or steal a server located in her home than one inside of a heavily controlled data center. I suppose the Secret Service is there to protect them when someone is in town, but I don't know if they keep an around the clock presence at their home when they are gone...besides, the Secret Service isn't exactly winning many awards lately, and are rumored to not be fans of Hill anyway. How easy would it be to have a spy seduce ole' Bill and gain access to the server while he passes out on a Viagra high?
Click to expand...

I'm sure the Clintons have a very secure bunker for their server. Not to protect themselves from foreign actors, but from the opposing party.

I'll give you that, the physical datacenter is likely not as secure as the SOS datacenter, but we are talking about an email server and enough storage for mail - not the launch codes. In other words, it is assumed that anything on that storage has been deemed suitable for emailing, so it has been made vulnerable in transit and at the recipient servers anyway.
 
You can really tell the difference between the concerned parties and political hacks on this thread.

Some are concerned about the lack of transparency and are WTF about why a high level politicians use their own email addresses.

Others are OMG Hillary! BENGHAZI!!!
 
PhDeac said:
You can really tell the difference between the concerned parties and political hacks on this thread.
Click to expand...

Yes you can. I think the next move is a story on what Bill O'Reilly does.
 
Isn't this breaking a little too early for the GOP? Even if there are smoking gun private to private emails with State Dept personnel that's going to come out relatively quickly. May freeze some donors, but will be resolved long before the convention. Dems have a thin bench, but this would have been much more devastating post-convention and that's assuming the worst. Clintons are slippery, but surely she didn't document incriminating things in writing. If she did, she much dumber than I thought.

Obama made a tactical blunder in releasing his birth certificate too early. Should have let the wingnuts rant about it for another year and released it post-convention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top