Just roll over. It will all be over soon, one way or the other.

... but no one told you.

Hillary scares the shit out of the right

scares the shit out of the right.

That doesn't make her a good choice for us.

and drinkable water and so on, i.e. Clinton.

likely.

"Stop ly­ing and de­flect­ing about how and why you stashed State De­part­ment email on an unsecure, easily-hacked secret serv­er—or stop run­ning."

There. That's better.

Some people just don't like her and want her to go away.

BECAUSE of the decisions she's made - like keeping sensitive information about our nation's government on an unsecure, easily-hacked server.

May come as a shock to you but plenty of people don't like neoliberalism, its supporters or its apologists. Period. End of fucking story.

It has nothing to do with personality politics or anything as ludicrous as voting for someone for their body parts.

Not for everyone, but for many.

personality and gender.

In July 2008, while investigators for the House Oversight Committee were looking into the death of Pat Tillman, they uncovered a 2004 email from Fournier to Karl Rove encouraging him to "keep up the fight."

On August 23, 2008, following U.S. Senator and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's announcement of his selection of Senator Joe Biden as a running mate, Fournier wrote a widely circulated piece titled "Analysis: Biden pick shows lack of confidence". A Washington Monthly columnist described the piece as "mirror[ing] the Republican line with minimal variation". Editor & Publisher noted that Fournier's article "gained wide linkage at the Drudge Report, Hot Air and numerous other conservative sites...." and was targeted by MoveOn.org for alleged bias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Fournier

We're supposed to trust him on his sources.

He should come clean or get out. What is his character value to his supporters. Oh I forgot !! it doesn't matter

The obvious intent is to try and "run out the clock" and reach the election before actually releasing all the information.

The primaries don't begin until February. The voters will have plenty of time to assess her handling of the situation.

Simple.

Easy peasy.

Isn't Democracy lovely?

For example, how was the security on her private server? Did they do a good job or not?

That's a rather important measure of judgement - did she trust it to people who knew what they were doing or not?

The goal of handling this via "drip...drip...drip..." is hoping that we reach election day before everything comes out, so that voters do not have all the information to make their decision.

'Cause nothing says "I love democracy" like intentionally keeping voters in the dark.

Did she (or her staff) do a good job securing her server?

Did she (or her staff) do a good job securing that server?

I asked if they did a good job securing it. "Doing a good job" does not mean make it absolutely hack-proof, because absolutely hack-proof does not exist.

So, did she (or her staff) do a good job securing that server? Did they screw up anything really obvious? Were there any very dumb mistakes that made it trivial for someone else to break into her server?

(Btw, your continuous efforts at dodging the question does demonstrate you really have no idea if they did a good job or not. But hey, the server's down so I can't get any work done anyway)

Did Clinton (or her staff) do a good job attempting to secure that server?

I did not ask "was Clinton's server utterly and completely secure?". Instead, I asked "Did Clinton and her staff do a good job attempting to secure it?"

So, well-informed primary voter, did Clinton and her staff do a good job attempting to secure her server?

with the subject at hand.

Again, you asserted that well-informed voters will be able to tell if Clinton did a good job with her server. You appear to be claiming you are a well-informed voter.

So did she do a good job with the security on her server? Or are you not a well-informed voter?

Getting into the HR files is much easier than getting into the files where classified information is stored. There are levels of security.

Hillary's server didn't have much more than what someone's home network has, which is precious little.

So, it comes down to this: if she made the decision to house classified and/or sensitive information on a personal server with little protection, what does that say about her decision-making skills?

No one is saying every server is secure. Heaven knows I know that they aren't. What we're saying is that her decision-making isn't up to the level of the leader of the "free" world.

And that would be lovely.

I don't know what it is. Sort of like "when did you stop beating your wife."
It is a non issue not important to people only those who oppose Hillary. No honor there!

The other poster is making a claim, that all these well-informed voters will handle it. That claim is being made as if the poster is a well-informed voter. Therefore, that poster should be able to answer that question.

That doesn't make it bogus. It makes it inconvenient for you.

vpn > fortinet > blackberry enterprise server ~$1000

After all, I posted the problems elsewhere under this OP.

However, this particular poster has a theory, and so I'm asking for their answer.

Come clean. Admit what we all know. Tell me the truth. Just make sure what you say coincides with what I already decided. I know you did it. Your alibi is useless.

Absolute desperation.

to the piece.

MY sources tell me the other shoe is about to drop on who was cruising around her server unnoticed because she and her IT solutions provider didn't even bother to employ the most basic security strategies, much less employ those that should be in place for someone who handles sensitive information (notice that I'm not using "classified" because there is a difference).

Though my source did tell me Gowdys support network is bigger than I think. I see my source is accurate on both counts at this point.

So your source is incorrect.

Hell, I can't even tell you his first name without looking it up.

the source of the witch hunt. Still, I believe may source to be fully accurate.

I think questioning the security of her personal server is legitimate.

Some of the other garbage that's been thrown about might be part of said witch hunt, but my position on secure servers that house classified or sensitive information isn't a part of that.

I only work in IT security - I'm not a member of any partisan investigatory committee.

What we know so far:

1) Communications with her server were not encrypted for the first 3 months.
https://www.venafi.com/blog/post/what-venafi-trustnet-tells-us-about-the-clinton-email-server/

2) They left the default VPN keys installed on her server
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-04/clinton-s-e-mail-system-built-for-privacy-though-not-security

If I have time, I might do it.

I'm a former reporter who has worked in public relations for an IT security firm for nine years now.

Wonder who'd be willing to print the piece? Not TPM or Think Progress, that's for sure.

Supporters who say it's nothing are basing that claim on hope. We don't know what's there. I hope it doesn't go south in a very bad way, but there's no way of knowing with certainty what's there. I doubt Hillary knows what's there since it was most likely underlings making the decision to save or delete.

The server wasn't wiped clean. If there are any gaps, the ISP has backups that can be subpoenaed.

And the FBI is 'investigating.' That investigation may go anywhere the emails take them. The person who set up the server is taking the fifth and won't talk without immunity.

This could result in an indictment of Hillary. Or not. But it's a hell of a sword hanging over the head of the presumptive Democratic nominee.

This had better damn well be resolved before the convention. If this is still hanging out there, and Democrats go forth with nominating her, I will think we are insane lemmings.

eom

There are plenty of important issues facing our country, several of which Clinton needs to be questioned on; but this email story is not on that list at all.

Been waiting for you to step forward and speak for all of outside the beltway.

Yay for our chosen spokesperson.

Of course, the beltway media, Republicans and their water carriers on the left would much prefer to discuss this trivial matter ad nauseum instead of speaking to what is truly important to the people of this country.

...a week or so ago that this was all gone away.


I'm stunned to see it back in the news! Stunned l say.

and that it would all go away.

She had access to a lot of very sensitive government secrets that, if known, might put other Americans in harm's way!

When she is President you can look back on the futility of this OP

"I set up my server because I didn't want to carry two phones." "The State Department approved my system." "I was just responding to the same routine request for emails that prior SoS's were receiving."

what a great find. I could print pages and pages and pages of him trashing talking Obama (he has repeatedly blamed Obama for not working enough with the GOP for instance). Do you read anyone who doesn't hate Democrats? I mean like ever.

Another day, another right wing pundit extolled on DU.

It is 100% completely true that there is a right wing witch hunt with regard to Mrs. Clinton's emails. There is no hidden/deleted email where Mrs. Clinton explains her fiendish Benghazi plot. That's pure fantasy, and I have to assume the request for emails is in pursuit of whatever can be made to sound damaging.

That said, there is a very real problem here regarding good governance. Mrs. Clinton keeping her email on a private server is plainly about having control, and it defeats legitimate oversight and FOIA requests. Quite simply, it's distasteful and sketchy. Also, her responses to the issue has been bumbling and dishonest.

There is a right wing smear and there is bad behavior. We can hold two thoughts in our minds at the same time.

There were dozens of FOIA requests that were answered with the response that there was no info. to turn over that was pertinant to the request.

Turns out there was much info but it was on Hillary's personal e-mail. I would think there would eventually be some sanctions on this practice.

I would think there would be many people and especially reporters who issued FOIA requests, and were told there was nothing responsive and now they are holding an e-mail that was absolutely responsive but was not turned over, and I imagine they are hopping mad. And I imagine they are going to be appearing in front of judges demanding that some sanction be applied.

This really hasn't been talked about, but I think it eventually will burst out.