[quote]pushharder wrote:
Don’t think for a second that savvy Slick Hilly did not do this deliberately.[/quote]
No doubt.
She’s been in government for how long, this requirement was not something she was oblivious too. Combine it with the Clinton foundation accepting bribes from Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Australia, Norway and the Dominican Republic.
I know this might sound bad from a national security viewpoint, but I really do hope that someone hacked it and releases some dirt on her
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
The fact that she operated a private, hackable and completely unsecured connection for national diplomatic purposes is outrageous. It puts all our information at risk, because you can bet that even if she did somehow add a security function to the account all private email is lightyears away from the kind of encryption needed to be impregnable from China, Russia, or any other government’s information gathering apparatus.
[/quote]
Even if someone were able to intercept her communications they would need her private keys to decrypt. The same kind of security that the USG uses is available to private email provided one knows how to implement it. It is not hard to generate multiple private keys just for obfuscation purposes.
In order for anyone to decrypt her emails they would have to be able to not only intercept them but also be able to know all of her private keys as well as correlate which private keys were used for which transmissions.
It isn’t as simple as the movies make it seem.
Edit:
It is even more difficult than this. I left out the fact that not only would they need her private keys they would need to know the keys of those she was in correspondence with. The encryption is two way (think of it as a locked box to which both parties must posses the correct private key to open it).
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Am I wrong in feeling that something like this would have sank a presidential bid as short as 20 years ago, let along in the mid & late 20th century or before. (Obviously accounting for email not being used in the mid 20th.)
I mean, when this ends up ignored by the MSM or explained away, and we’re worse off for it, is there comfort in the thought that prior to Rock Star presidents this would have not been acceptable, by either side? Have we ever had integrity?[/quote]
The general public, and therefore MSM, is not savvy enough to understand the nuances of information security.
Lack of “integrity” should be enough to disqualify anyone from public office but then again those people who are supposed to verify this are also lacking integrity.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Oh God… It’s going to be Liz Warren then.
fml. [/quote]
No one outside of MA knows who Liz Warren is.
A female unknown is NOT winning the presidency imo.
It’ll be some random male Democrat that few of the general public heard about. Much like Obama and Clinton.[/quote]
You better hope O’Malley doesn’t win.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^Not necessarily.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/former-state-department-officials-explain-152110637.html[/quote]
Two anonymous sources?
Great.
Not a smidgen of corruption. [/quote]
Lol, ya I always love when the sources are anonymous.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^Not necessarily.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/former-state-department-officials-explain-152110637.html[/quote]
Two anonymous sources?
Great.
Not a smidgen of corruption. [/quote]
Lol, ya I always love when the sources are anonymous. [/quote]
It was certainly some low level rouge employees in Cincinnati.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^Not necessarily.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/former-state-department-officials-explain-152110637.html[/quote]
Two anonymous sources?
Great.
Not a smidgen of corruption. [/quote]
Lol, ya I always love when the sources are anonymous. [/quote]
It was certainly some low level rouge employees in Cincinnati.
[/quote]
It’s always just a low level rogue employee…
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Even if someone were able to intercept her communications they would need her private keys to decrypt…
[/quote]
Her emails were not encrypted.
One of the links posted described how they were hacked by a Romanian hacker, since arrested who also released Bush 41’s bathtub painting selfies, which did compromise potentially sensitive information.
Meanwhile, Petraeus just plead guilty to a crime involving similar issues.
[quote]theuofh wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Even if someone were able to intercept her communications they would need her private keys to decrypt…
[/quote]
Her emails were not encrypted.
One of the links posted described how they were hacked by a Romanian hacker, since arrested who also released Bush 41’s bathtub painting selfies, which did compromise potentially sensitive information.
Meanwhile, Petraeus just plead guilty to a crime involving similar issues.
[/quote]
Bahahaha!
That’s awesomely humorous and scary at the same time.
Muh security!
Judge Napolitano made as usual raised an intersting point about this tonight on Megan Kelly. Apparently now that Clinton is no longer secretary of state she no longer has a top secret security clearance. Any top secret emails that may have been sent to her are still government property and because she no longer has a security clearance she is not supposed to be in possession of them and can be arrested if she is caught with them.
The law prohibits anyone who is convicted of such a crime from holding elected office.
The other problem I see that needs to be investigated is why the white House didn’t do anything about this. If they were sending her emails they had to know she wasn’t using a government email account. If they knew she was holding onto top secret information after her security clearance was revoked and they didn’t try to recover it from her I wonder if they (the white House) can get into trouble.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Am I wrong in feeling that something like this would have sank a presidential bid as short as 20 years ago, let along in the mid & late 20th century or before. (Obviously accounting for email not being used in the mid 20th.)
I mean, when this ends up ignored by the MSM or explained away, and we’re worse off for it, is there comfort in the thought that prior to Rock Star presidents this would have not been acceptable, by either side? Have we ever had integrity?[/quote]
There have been far worse actual intelligence disasters that haven’t mattered on election day. Iran/Contra was a disastrous intelligence failure, Bay of Pigs was a disaster (and I don’t think anyone would argue that JFK would have lost in '64), the entirety of the Vietnam War was an intelligence disaster and Nixon won re-election in the middle of it.
The intelligence failures within the CIA during the 50’s and 60’s were shockingly frequent and blatant. Far worse than the substantial risk Clinton has exposed us to. The only difference now is that we know about it.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Judge Napolitano made as usual raised an intersting point about this tonight on Megan Kelly. Apparently now that Clinton is no longer secretary of state she no longer has a top secret security clearance. Any top secret emails that may have been sent to her are still government property and because she no longer has a security clearance she is not supposed to be in possession of them and can be arrested if she is caught with them.
The law prohibits anyone who is convicted of such a crime from holding elected office.
The other problem I see that needs to be investigated is why the white House didn’t do anything about this. If they were sending her emails they had to know she wasn’t using a government email account. If they knew she was holding onto top secret information after her security clearance was revoked and they didn’t try to recover it from her I wonder if they (the white House) can get into trouble. [/quote]
This is not the first time a away official used a non-government email account, the former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson created a fake email account using the name Richard Windsor to communicate with special interest groups. She resigned and there was no follow up afterwards.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
the entirety of the Vietnam War was an intelligence disaster and Nixon won re-election in the middle of it.
.[/quote]
Do people really blame Nixon for Vietnam?
I mean, how is that not LBJ’s cross to bear? Because he didn’t run for re-election?
That seems like someone saying “Iraq was Obama’s fault”. While I’m sure there are valid criticism of the way Bam handled Iraq once he got into office, it is still 43’s war.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/04/video-in-2007-hillary-said-secret-emails-shredded-the-constitution/[/quote]
And in other news: nearly everything government does “shreds the constitution”.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Judge Napolitano made as usual raised an intersting point about this tonight on Megan Kelly. Apparently now that Clinton is no longer secretary of state she no longer has a top secret security clearance. Any top secret emails that may have been sent to her are still government property and because she no longer has a security clearance she is not supposed to be in possession of them and can be arrested if she is caught with them.
The law prohibits anyone who is convicted of such a crime from holding elected office.
The other problem I see that needs to be investigated is why the white House didn’t do anything about this. If they were sending her emails they had to know she wasn’t using a government email account. If they knew she was holding onto top secret information after her security clearance was revoked and they didn’t try to recover it from her I wonder if they (the white House) can get into trouble. [/quote]
This is not the first time a away official used a non-government email account, the former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson created a fake email account using the name Richard Windsor to communicate with special interest groups. She resigned and there was no follow up afterwards.[/quote]
Other people did it, is an immature and childish rationalization. To begin with you are comparing an administrator at the EPA to the highest ranking official in the presidential cabinet and fourth in line of succession to the presidency.
It is retarded to compare what Clinton did to the previous secretaries of state because the regulations regarding their email were changed in 2009. So Clinton was required to obey a new more stringent set of rules.
Besides that, her predecessor Condoleezza Rice exclusively used a secure government server for all of her emails. So Clinton absolutely was not following the most up to date best practices, nor the practices of her predecessor. The State department spokes bimbo couldn’t even explain that inconsistency away.
Because of her position as secretary of state, Clinton had a top secret security clearance so she could have access to classified information. That makes her very different from an EPA administrator. There most likely has been classified information on that server. Clinton had to know that she would be privy to top secret information when she set that server up. So this is a clear and blatant intention to violate law.
The million dollar question right now is why hasn’t the FBI been dispatched with search warrants to seize that server and all the other computers that have been granted access to it?
And what does the white house do?
Throw her under the bus, or deny, deny, deny?
http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-emails-inject-obamas-administration-2016-fray-081233081--election.html
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
And what does the white house do?
Throw her under the bus, or deny, deny, deny?
I don’t see how the White House can deny knowledge. Do they honestly expect us to believe that not one official from the President on down (or their secretary) had the email address to the Secretary of State in their Rolodex or any other address book?
The White House had to have known the email address of the Secretary of State otherwise how could the White House send Clinton email without it?
There is also the issue that the White House would have been receiving official, potentially top secret, emails from the Secretary of State that were originating from a non-secure non-governmental server. I’m surprised that didn’t ring alarm bells at the Secret Service. It sounds like once more they aren’t thoroughly securing and controlling access to the President.
Why did it take from last summer when it was first noticed by the Benghazi committee that a private Clinton email server was being used till now for the department of state to admit that was the only email account she used? This wreaks of a coverup.
This statement is a whopper!!!
“Clinton announced in a late-night tweet Wednesday that she wants her emails released.”
Those emails are on her server, in her home! She has full control over what is being released by her to the State Department so the State department has no control over what it can release. This arrangement means she gets to scrub any incriminating or embarrassing information before the State Department gets to look at it. That is not how transparency works.
Step one: Get rid of Hillary
Step two: Nominate liz warren