Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumHere's what you need to know about the 7 Clinton emails ...
Last edited Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:53 PM - Edit history (1)
...which the State Department is withholding due to classification issues.
1) There was no government rule which prevented Hillary from setting up and using a private email server to handle her government emails.
2) Other State Departments heads including Colon Powell used the exact same set up. I don't hear the Republicans complaining about him.
3) Hillary's server was used to send and receive messages to and from other government employees in the State Department and for her personal email traffic as well.
4) Any official State Department emails set to or received from Hillary's server were also maintained the State Department's government servers - therefore there is a government record of each and every one.
5) Investigations determined that Hillary's server had the exact same security protections required on all State Department government servers.
6) Investigation have also concluded that that there was no security breaches of Hillary's server - yes IT security experts can determine if such a breach occurred.
7) Because an email server is most vulnerable to security breaches cause by user error - such as opening a document on a fake email which releases a virus which allows 0the server to be hacked - the less people having access to a server, the more secure it is. So Hillary's server was probably more secure than the State Department's email machines. (Note: There have been several reports of government servers being hacked and very sensitive data being lost. This did not happen on Hillary's server.)
7) The 7 emails in question were not classified when they were sent and received.
8) The State Department is not withholding the 7 emails because they believe they that the emails should be classified; it is another government agency that is claiming that they should be classified. It is a well known fact that there is a propensity in many government agencies to over classify data - often because the information in question may make the the agency look bad if it was ever publicized. It is their way of making sure that the public never knows that they screwed up. I am not saying that is what is going on here, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised me if it were the case because that is often a prime reason why different agencies disagree on information classification.
9) The State Department is not saying that they will never distribute the emails. They are saying that they are withholding them for now until they can do their own investigation as to whether the emails should be classified.
Bottom line: The entire affair was totally blown totally out of proportion by Republican seeking political advantage. If Democrats are repeating Republicans talking points on this issue, they should be ashamed of themselves.
And yes, I am an IT professional who knows what he is talking about when it comes to cyber security.
Suich
(10,642 posts)Turbineguy
(37,372 posts)to put together an investigative committee.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)romana
(765 posts)lanlady
(7,135 posts)... how is it possible to forward email from a classified system to someone's private email server? I work on classified systems so I know that it's next to impossible to directly send anything classified to an address outside the system. Basically you'd have to sneak it out of the building and scan it. Which makes me believe that unless the State Department is irredeemably stupid when it comes to protecting classified info, whatever went to Hillary's server came from an unclassified network. Do you agree, CajunBlazer?
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:25 PM - Edit history (1)
I work in a company were the protection of some of our our customers' date a absolutely paramount. However, I still can send emails (which can be monitored by the company security) to non-company private email addresses. Privileged customer data is kept on secure systems which only those with a need to know can access. I guess one could improperly include such data in an email, but the responsibility for keeping that data secure is the responsibility of those who have access to it. No security software can readily identify that data as customer propriety.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Nothing there.
Now the silliness of 'anonymous sources.'
With the goal of discrediting the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
The Republicans said this is what it was all about. Which is good enough for who?
Bleacher Creature
(11,257 posts)This is what they've been throwing at the Clintons since the 90s.
Cha
(297,733 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)mcar
(42,376 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Holy ratfuck I keep having deja vu all over again moments with those nasty republictard fuckfaced slimy bastards. grrrrr
William769
(55,148 posts)Bleacher Creature
(11,257 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)It's been a rough two days for me on DU and your comments really help.
Bleacher Creature
(11,257 posts)The whole thing caught my attention when I was about to respond to your post in the HC group - at least until it was locked. It really bothered me to see them follow you here. Glad you're back.