work on an unapproved private system, since he was a State employee. Why did she get him a job at State, then? Was it to have someone as a go-between for both the government and private systems? What's clear is that contrary to what she said today, she put an awful lot of thought and work into her email setup, no?

is getting so tiring and stinky.

I didn't see that in the story. He didn't declare it to the State Dept.--their IT people had no idea for at least a while that she didn't use a .gov address. So did anyone know at State besides her personal entourage that she had this deal arranged? The White House? Edit to add: no wonder he's taking the fifth. Yikes.

Even if I followed the law to the letter, or at least my lawyers interpretation of what the law says, I would have as well just because of the right-wing sharks circling Hillary around anything they can. Don't give them a reason to try and trip you up because of a false memory you may have or some mistake like that. It is shady no doubt, but legally I'd probably do the same, unless convinced otherwise.

H just makes the argument why not to completely trust her judgment.

...who stoop to trash a Democratic candidate who may be our nominee.

Self righteousness is not a tactic that works on me. .move along.

you are not. Let's leave the tearing down of other candidates of the same party to the Republicans.

Just nuts.

He needed to declare this to State Dept. and he wasn't only staffer who worked for government and Clintons/Clinton Foundation. Huge conflict of interest.

It sure seems like this IT guy might end up being the fall guy for this mess. He clearly didn't make the decisions but if the rest of Team Clinton sticks together he could get stuck with the consequences.

.

And it isn't intended to imply anything other than the stereotype that often follows things like this when you need to get rid of someone who has potentially damaging information on you. It could be anyone in that situation, my comment was intended for a light jab at the caricature of politics in general. I am sorry if you felt like it was to imply the Clinton's would eliminate someone for political purpose. I thank you for drawing attention to my lack of sincerity and intelligence regarding this matter and sincerely wish you have a splendid and wonderful day.

And yes it was a conflict of interest.

You have to fill out a form stating all outside income , every year, and conflict of interest is a big deal.
From the article:

If there to be a conflict of interest, there actually has to be a conflict of interest.

If work for a telephone company for instance and I do telephone work for my own company or competitor in my off hours, that is a conflict of interest.

If I work as a techie for the State Department and I work a techie for the Chinese government at night, that is "huge conflict of interests".

How in the heck is what this guy did "a huge conflict of interest".

Asked by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Friday whether anyone in her inner circle ever expressed concern about the setup, Clinton responded, “I was not thinking a lot when I got in.”

“There was so much work to be done,” Clinton continued. “We had so many problems around the world. I didn’t really stop and think — what — what kind of e-mail system will there be?”

This is just sad because HRC had a lot of support and goodwill for a 2016 run.

Her odds 74%.....

This picure you are trying so hard to paint of her as "sad and losing" is hilarious...please continue...

he was good at his job because the Clinton email data was preserved and protected while the government systems have all been hacked by the Chinese and the Russians and the top secret special very very secure official communication system that State must use that runs through the DOD and can only be accessed from an embassy was easily accessed by Chelsea Manning and he downloaded more than 250K cables and gave them to wikileaks.

Sounds to me like the government should hire this guy and contract with the Clintons to use their private servers if they want to keep their secrets and preserve their data.

The government has repeatedly insisted the hacks by foreign espionage agencies haven't reach classified info; the reason for that is mostly that classified information is supposedly actually separated from communications that involve the internet facilitating the attack. The Clinton server violated that separation and was physically associated with the Clinton family email for diverse purposes of the Clinton family.

As CT fiction goes, and with some hyperbole, for some people it's like Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan character having his wife do hospital fund-raising and his kids doing twitter accounts via the hero's CIA laptop.

That problem is really as much on the State Dept as it is on the Clintons, but the Clintons use of 'their own man' to operate between the systems seems to have helped keep State employees in the dark (here I want to say, proper compartmentalization is supposed to limit who knows about things intended to remain 'secret'). At the same time, it gave 'their own man' access to information on how State organized, how its communications systems were structured and functioned, so that the private server could bridge the gap between internet and fire-walled government system, and the latter's encryption.

It's also not possible to say it's ok because they trusted 'their man' or because 'their man' had a security clearance. A person with a clearance and access, who is willing to violate security protocol is exactly the sort of person you would want in place if, indeed, you wanted to engage in espionage. If I were writing espionage fiction involving hacking government secure communications, something like that person would be part of the plot. I'd want the mole character to be willing to do his/her day job and willing, for a price, to do a special 'private' job on the side.

And, imo, that scenario generates a significant fraction of the 'WTF is going on?' concern. It just doesn't smell right to people who read espionage novels. People who worry about security concerns, with or without real understanding of digital communications, worry about stuff that seems a lot like this. It really doesn't matter to people with such concerns whether or not the private server used by Chelsea, Bill (and maybe thereby for the Clinton Foundation), and the US State Dept was ever actually hacked or whether it kept better back-up of communications than the government system.

The problem for folks who may or may not have little knowledge but who have over-sized security concerns is that the Clinton's knowingly established a bridge between systems meant to be independent, and that bridge was created and maintained by a person who worked what might appear to be a conflict of interest for profit.

Last edited Sat Sep 5, 2015, 11:49 AM - Edit history (1)

I've wondered why the wiped hard drive was sent to Colorado to be stored in the Platte River Systems "Mom & Pop" operation where (latest Politco Report) says it was confiscated by FBI.

WaPo and Politico have followed the e-mail Server saga....but, there are so many questions still unanswered. Or maybe just pieces that haven't been pulled together yet.

Why wasn't the wiped hard drive kept stored in in the Chappaqua house where the server was located?

I wonder if some of the confusion, also is that maybe the Clinton Foundation (who used the server originally) e-mail correspondence got mixed in with the DOS e-mails and that is what caused Hillary's lawyer to go through and delete what was said to be Hillary's personal communications?

The overlapping of DOS business and Clinton Foundation activities while Hillary was SOS does seem to need some examining.

So it's more than just Hillary's emails that are in question. It's any DOS employee that had an account on it.

And in particular, it's been about close Clinton friend and adviser Huma Abedin, who republicans believe has a sibling connected to Islamic Brotherhood via the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. Getting access to that server is also about dragging a muslim pver the coals. Abedin, supposedly, avoided signing an affidavit that all her email on that server was turned over.

The investigators' suspicions are a growing and is adjusting it's prey image toward other people. Those people don't enjoy the protection that fame and status provide HRC.

As I understand it in order to read/respond to classified information Hillary had to use a different system (hardware) within a secured facility like an embassy. The Clinton IT guy was no where near that system. It was handled by the government security people within the embassy or when traveling.

I guess I just don't understand what bridge you are saying was created. If you are talking about the .gov stuff none of that is classified anyway.

The IT guy apparently made it possible for Clinton using an internet based machine to communicate with the secure system.

The released emails seem to indicate that state employees reported failed attempts to direct reply to Clinton via the government's secure hardware and those employees were blocked, which caused those persons to report 'troubles' with their computers. That resulted in comments from the IT guy back to Clinton saying something to the effect 'apparently your server is back up' (pls forgive me for not having a verbatim quote from that email, but it's included in several DU posts from this past week).

The implication stated in the post I read on DU is that the IT guy would have had to install access codes and perhaps other modifications to allow the email system on the Clinton server to enable that.

In any case, the main point of my post remains. People with varying knowledge, from none to adequate, having various concerns about security play out scenarios in their heads and go WTF? The scenario where an inside guy is also doing private work on the side that intersects his inside day job creates a conflict of appearances that enables appearances that security folks intend to avoid. The IT guy really does need to follow the advice of his attorney

I can't do better than that, sorry. Whether something excerpted into a post would be more or less reliable... it -is- GD-P and it -is- primary season. Even the most reliable sources are going to be questioned by people who don't like whatever is posted.

He was involved in behaviors that give him the appearance of a conflict of interest, and in the eyes of people who want it to be, it is the very circumstance that communications security wants to avoid.

Who did he ultimately work for when he worked for the State Department and got paid by the government?

Who did he work for when he worked on Hillary's server?

Gee, isn't that is the same person? So what perverted logic are you using to state that he had a conflict of interest?

And don't give me some cyber security BS, because that is not a topic that you want to get into with me.

Given that she used the server, what would you have rather she done, hire someone on the outside who doesn't have a security clearance. So from a security standpoint it better that she used a competent State Department techie, who has a security clearance, who was up on the latest security threats and how to prevent them.

And given that she use the server, how would you have had her pay him, have him come to her home during work hours or have him come after work and pay him herself

Not only are you points invalid, but you are acting like a Republican, tearing down a Democratic candidate who could be our nominee. Not bright. Not bright at all.

I'm -am- trying to suggest how it is that this ridiculous event is growing rather than going away. To do that you sort of -do- have to look at the problem from the point of view of the people pushing for more and more investigation..

He didn't report the income from Clinton for work on that server. His position with DOS IT looks not unlike a patronage position.

Is all that coincidence and unintended oversight or was that on purpose?

Only investigation can really sort that out, and that's seems like one explanation why IGs and the FBI are looking at broader investigations and those investigation are why the story won't seem to fade away.

When are we going to learn that it isn't bright to endanger our chances of putting a Democrat in the White house in the process of trying to help our chosen candidate.

Essentially it was a second job. The guy who used to be the postmaster in our town ran a computer repair business on the side. So what? It's puzzling he's going to take the 5th over this.

The hyperbole is amazing.....

disclosures he filed each year. That doesn't look good for him. It makes it look like Hillary was paying him under the table.

Money on the side I'm sure the Clintons payed him a boat load of money.It's being reported on.the Saturday news shows that the Clintons didn't want tax payers paying for her personal server so they payed him instead.This like everything else is much to do about nothing.

eom

From the article:
"Pagliano did not list the outside income in the required personal financial disclosures he filed each year."

If his lack of disclosure on the form was a violation of law that would be a good reason to take the 5th.

Last edited Sat Sep 5, 2015, 12:39 PM - Edit history (1)

He sold secrets about our encryption devices that we both swore to keep secret and were trusted to do so.

Guys on the inside, paid to work their day jobs, but who take pay on the side to do work that undermines security are potentially 'John Anthony Walkers'.

Working a 'second job that bridges the physical security between a private family used computer system and the government's supposedly 'physically' separated system looks rather similar to a guy doing a security breach for money...if you are a person who is inclined to look for such things.

The difference between blowing it off and taking it seriously depends on where someone is situated relative to their security concerns. Clearly there are political motivations in play, but there are also concerns of people whose jobs it is to consider the security of the US secure communications systems.

Her private go-to tech guy really should plead the 5th and get immunity, whether or not we think he acted criminally. Others think they smell a rotting fish, he needs to not look like an old tuna sandwich.

And least you think I don't know what I was Air Force officer with a secret clearance.

The tech guy is pleading the 5th because he didn't declare the extra income on his taxes. So much for your rotting fish.

concerning communications security. I really don't think the committee or the IT see unpaid taxes, per se, as the issue.

Re the income, apparently the unreported income wasn't reported to State, either. Which among people who might look for such things might add to suspicion...

And that's sort of the basic problem for the IT guy. Investigators on the hunt, they're paid to be suspicious. In that climate, a person at the heart of the server issue probably needs to follow his lawyer's advice.

I think it's time to do as the Obama administration seems to be doing...let the investigations propagate, cooperate and help the fuel run out.

...they are going to figure out that the reason he doesn't want to testify and incriminate himself is because he is trying to save himself, not because he did something wrong working for Clinton.

He lawyer is probably calling the shots and not testifying is smart. If the committee really wants to hear what he knows they can provide him immunity from prosecution and hear the entire story.

Unlike you,. the tech guy is acting smart. You on the other hand are acting like a stupid Republican in attacking a Democratic candidate who may be the nominee. Not bright. Not bright at all.

I didn't call you a name, go back and read my post. I said you weren't acting smart - that is statement of fact which you have done nothing to refute. I said you were acting like a dumb Republican. Republicans are spending their time tearing down other Republican canidates which is just dumb. So that too was also a statement of fact.

When one says you aren't acting very smart, that is not the same thing as saying you aren't very smart.

When one says you you are acting like a dumb Republican, that is not the same thing as saying you are a dumb Republican.

Yes indeed, I shouted my reply title in all caps - just the way the GOP candidate's campaign will shout it in the general election. Here we have yet another in a long line of examples, over the decades, of how the Clintons have neither a concept of nor respect for boundaries - personal or professional.

This was amply demonstrated in the New York Times iconic expose of the tangled web comprised of the Clinton Foundation, the Clintons' personal finances, and HRC's campaign preparations. Yet another foretaste of what a giant, 4 year long, brouhaha a Clinton administration would be - one Congressional investigation after another, with HRC stonewalling -- as when she "lost" her billing records from the Rose law firm for 2 years, thereby dragging out Ken Starr's investigation long enough for Monica Lewinsky to make the scene at the White House - and yet the Clintons have not seemed to learn that it's not the crime, it's the coverup. I am not ready for anymore Hillary, nor is the Democratic party, nor are independent voters.

What we know about Hillary Clinton's e-mail server OP link headline

The FBI is investigating the security of Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server. Here's what we know about the server, who kept it secure and how that's changed. (OP link subheadline)
(Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)
By Rosalind S. Helderman and Carol D. Leonnig September 5 at 12:07 AM

The private employment of Pagliano provides a new example of the ways that Clinton — who occupied a unique role as a Cabinet secretary who was also a former and potentially future presidential candidate — hired staff to work simultaneously for her in public and private capacities.

*******

Those of us who lived through the Clinton years well remember:

This was amply demonstrated in the New York Times iconic expose of the tangled web comprised of the Clinton Foundation, the Clintons' personal finances, and HRC's campaign preparations. Yet another foretaste of what a giant, 4 year long, brouhaha a Clinton administration would be - one Congressional investigation after another, with HRC stonewalling -- as when she "lost" her billing records from the Rose law firm for 2 years, thereby dragging out Ken Starr's investigation long enough for Monica Lewinsky to make the scene at the White House - and yet the Clintons have not seemed to learn that it's not the crime, it's the coverup. I am not ready for anymore Hillary, nor is the Democratic party, nor are independent voters.

let's bring up the results. Zero, that is the number of convictions of anyone in that administration for something they did while in that administration that weren't overturned by SCOTUS (there was a Sec of Agriculture who was convicted by an independent council but the convictions was overturned). The only conviction they got was Ciscernos who was convicted for lying to the FBI about an affair he had while mayor of San Antonio before he got appointed to the cabinet. The lie to the FBI was while he was being vetted.

If you think Bernie Sanders is a wonderful leader, then follow his lead and speak not ill of other Democratic candidates. You're not thinking straight if you think you are going to persuade Clinton supporters on this board to join Sander's cause, so forget it. All you are going to do is help to tear down another Democratic candidate who may be our nominee and make her supporters more willing to tear down Sanders.

So she hired a staffer, probably a IT techie and an expert on cyber security, on his own time to maintain the server. Big fricking deal! Let the Republicans candidates tear each other apart. We need to act like the adults in the room.

I can hear some of you saying - I won't vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. Forgive my French - but Bullshit!!! You may get away with that idealistic crap in a totally blue state, but if you live anywhere else and the Republican candidate is Trump, or Bush or maybe Rubio, you are going to swallow your pride and pull the Democratic lever like you always do, or you don't need to be on this board. If Hilliary is the nominee, Bernie will be the first one to jump on her bandwagon and you will be right behind.

Smart birds don't mess in their own nests.

been doing this stuff for years. It's just now the Repugs are so desperate to take her down, they will use anything they can against her. Not condemning her in anyway, but hypocrisy bleeds deep in the establishment on both sides on this one I think.

When some of the best hackers are among the smartest people on the planet, working on teams that number in the hundreds, and are financed by foreign countries?

... and you are nor being very smart acting like the dumb Republicans trying to tear down a Democratic candidate who could be our nominee.

To your point, many government servers have been breached by hackers, Hillary's server was not. That should tell you something.

Which takes us back to the original question I asked.

Want to take another swing at it?

Why would you do that in the "absence of evidence either way" unless you are trying your best to throw mud at a Democratic candidate who may be the nominee? Assuming you want to see a Democrat in the White House, do you really think that bright?

Don't be one.

You need to go back and read my post because I didn't call anyone stupid.

I said he didn't know anything about cyber security - that isn't being stupid, just ignorant. We are all ignorant about certain things.

I also said he wasn't being smart acting like a dumb Republican. That's not calling him stupid, we all act in dumb ways at times, that doesn't mean we are stupid.

But when it comes to being an asshole, you ought to try that shoe and see if it fits.

So far it appears that the Clinton's did but we admittedly don't know that for sure but yes wealthy people can and do keep secure servers. They can afford top flight talent to make sure they have the latest in security and they have the advantage of relatively few people having access to the server via accounts. Given that, her server was likely more safe than government ones (and since those were hacked repeatedly that doesn't necessarily mean totally safe).

Supported by foreign governments?

I ask again because I don't think you did anything but dance around it.

then know he likely couldn't. But if by defend the server you mean recommend what software to be installed to defend the server, install the software to defend the server, recommend practices to keep the server from being hacked then yes I do. He doesn't sit 24/7 waiting for an attack and literally fight them off.

again, you this isn't like war games.

Right now we know one person who got paid to play administrator. You're doing your level best to make the point no one else did.

but the school district I work at doesn't have anyone manning my email server now yet I can get and send email. I don't think servers work the way you apparently think they do. One person could easily do this job if we are referring to keeping the server operative and unhacked. If we are referring to writing the software as opposed to merely installing it then likely not.

My company has many thousands of servers around the world and no one sits around and watches each one to guard against hackers. We have software and firewall that handle that job. Also we don't necessarily write our own security software either. There are companies who specialize in writing such software, keep up with the latest cyber threats, and devise defenses for them. And oh, by the way, we have never been successfully hacked though their are hundreds of attempts daily.

What you need to understand is that the greatest security vulnerability of a server is the human beings that use them. Hackers use a lot of techniques to attack servers and get around its firewalls and other defenses, but the most effective is phishing. Hackers use so call social engineering to get users to help them get access by contacting individuals to learn passwords, etc. They will often use malware hidden in documents embedded in emails to gain access. That's why you should never open a document sent to you in an email without using security software to detect threats. Even documents sent to you by close friends are suspect because their computers may have penetrated and their email system sabotaged to send such malware. That's how many computer viruses spread.

Understand this, all things being equal, the vulnerability of server to cyber treats is directly proportional to the number of people who have access them. The greater the number people using servers the greater chance one of them will allow malware in, though the security software should still catch it before it does any damage.

Since very few people had access to Hillary's server, it probably was safer than most of the government machines which have thousands of users.

It is amazing the the false conclusions people will draw when they don't know what they are talking about but fail to let that stop them from drawing wrong conclusions that happen to help them make their point.