• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clinton had no official State Dept. email address

Update:

Clinton

A week before becoming secretary of state, Hillary Clinton set up a private e-mail system that gave her a high level of control over communications, including the ability to erase messages completely, according to security experts who have examined Internet records.
.....
It took less than a day for researchers to find potential problems with the Clinton’s system.

Using a scanning tool called Fierce that he developed, Robert Hansen, a web-application security specialist, found what he said were the addresses for Microsoft Outlook Web access server used by Clinton’s e-mail service, and the virtual private network used to download e-mail over an encrypted connection. If hackers located those links, they could search for weaknesses and intercept traffic, according to security experts.

Using those addresses, McGeorge discovered that the certificate appearing on the site Tuesday appeared to be the factory default for the security appliance, made by Fortinet Inc., running the service.
Those defaults would normally be replaced by a unique certificate purchased for a few hundred dollars. By not taking that step, the system was vulnerable to hacking.
Click to expand...

Self-signed certs? Seriously amateur hour.
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
Yea its the Media's fault that she exclusively used a private Email account and private server....Lol
Click to expand...

No, it's the supposedly respectable media's fault for putting out a bunch of crap stories that don't do the basics, such as identify which law she actually is supposedly breaking, and making claims that BLOGGERS debunked in a matter of days by referencing......the law. It's now clear, for example, that there is no legal problem with her using a private email address, and certainly no problem with a "private" server. Would it have been better if she's used hillary@gmail.com?
 
JasperL said:
No, it's the supposedly respectable media's fault for putting out a bunch of crap stories that don't do the basics, such as identify which law she actually is supposedly breaking, and making claims that BLOGGERS debunked in a matter of days by referencing......the law. It's now clear, for example, that there is no legal problem with her using a private email address, and certainly no problem with a "private" server. Would it have been better if she's used hillary@gmail.com?
Click to expand...

Yes, because Google would have stored all the emails, regardless of how many were deleted, which means they could be retrieved in their entirety. And Google's security is better than what her server had( see previous post ).

With her team under total control, they can scrub whatever they want.

The Associated Press is thinking about suing because their FOIA requests going back to 2010 didn't include emails from this server.
 
JasperL said:
No, it's the supposedly respectable media's fault for putting out a bunch of crap stories that don't do the basics, such as identify which law she actually is supposedly breaking, and making claims that BLOGGERS debunked in a matter of days by referencing......the law. It's now clear, for example, that there is no legal problem with her using a private email address, and certainly no problem with a "private" server. Would it have been better if she's used hillary@gmail.com?
Click to expand...

Lol....

Clinton did nothing wrong because your'e a Clinton supporter.
 
Samhain said:
Yes, because Google would have stored all the emails, regardless of how many were deleted, which means they could be retrieved in their entirety. And Google's security is better than what her server had( see previous post ).

With her team under total control, they can scrub whatever they want.

The Associated Press is thinking about suing because their FOIA requests going back to 2010 didn't include emails from this server.
Click to expand...

But you've referenced no laws anywhere. It's fine and dandy to write an article pointing out what you did. But that isn't what happened. And from what I saw last night the same vulnerability existed for the "official" state department email accounts. And, again, that's a different article altogether.
 
Fenton said:
Lol....

Clinton did nothing wrong because your'e a Clinton supporter.
Click to expand...

I'm actually not - I'll be happy if she does NOT run. But that's no reason to make excuses for BS reporting.
 
JasperL said:
I'm actually not - I'll be happy if she does NOT run. But that's no reason to make excuses for BS reporting.
Click to expand...

The reporting is not BS.

A High level Government official Setting up a personal Email server for the purpose of circumventing FOIA and Oversight Committee request is something worthy of investigation and should be reported on.
 
JasperL said:
But you've referenced no laws anywhere. It's fine and dandy to write an article pointing out what you did. But that isn't what happened. And from what I saw last night the same vulnerability existed for the "official" state department email accounts. And, again, that's a different article altogether.
Click to expand...

eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations

Been in place since the 1990s.

Additionally, both the policy of the State Department and Obama Administration Counsel guidance stated to use official government addresses/equipment.
 
JasperL said:
I'm actually not - I'll be happy if she does NOT run. But that's no reason to make excuses for BS reporting.
Click to expand...

It's not BS reporting, although I would not be surprised if anti-Clinton Dems were behind the story.
 
Fenton said:
The reporting is not BS.

A High level Government official Setting up a personal Email server for the purpose of circumventing FOIA and Oversight Committee request is something worthy of investigation and should be reported on.
Click to expand...

But they alleged she broke the law in doing so - which ones? And how did her behavior differ from previous SoSs? If she circumvented FOIA and Oversight Committee requests, that's a different story. The email story didn't even pretend to demonstrate any of that - it's an assumption with no facts to back it up. Those kinds of allegations are fine for a blogger without editors and fact checkers and sources, but not for the NYT or AP.
 
That old hag, how could she be so stupid to believe this would never surface for all the world to see? It proves beyond any debate she has less regard for the rules of our constitution than Monica's lover. Yet, she will continue to be a leader for the nomination because the party like the Republicans is without a viable nominee. If there is one single reader that does not believe she will not rip the constitution to shreds if she is president then that one person be damned to be stupid forever.
 
Samhain said:
eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations

Been in place since the 1990s.

Additionally, both the policy of the State Department and Obama Administration Counsel guidance stated to use official government addresses/equipment.
Click to expand...

I haven't looked up the history of that part of the law, but the legal issue if there is one is that her personal email wasn't timely (?) transferred to a state dept server, not that she used a personal email account. The original stories misled readers on all of that and certainly didn't even bother to do what you did - which was reference a specific law that Hillary was alleged to have skirted/broken.
 
Jack Hays said:
It's not BS reporting, although I would not be surprised if anti-Clinton Dems were behind the story.
Click to expand...

It was incredibly sloppy at a minimum for the NYT and AP to run what they did. They didn't meet basic standards for a story of such high profile.

And you might be right about "anti-Clinton Dems" being behind it. If this was planted by someone, it's even more inexcusable that NYT and AP would run with it without doing basic fact checking and editing before making what were pretty explosive allegations. They're not bloggers.
 
JasperL said:
It was incredibly sloppy at a minimum for the NYT and AP to run what they did. They didn't meet basic standards for a story of such high profile.

And you might be right about "anti-Clinton Dems" being behind it. If this was planted by someone, it's even more inexcusable that NYT and AP would run with it without doing basic fact checking and editing before making what were pretty explosive allegations. They're not bloggers.
Click to expand...

I don't think the story was all that sloppy, but then my expectations for the NYT are not high. I remember too well their thoroughly fictional hit piece about McCain's non-existent "affair." Since the anti-Hillary left is based in the journalist/literary/artistic wing of the Dem party, a story fed to the NYT seems like a natural fit.
 
Jack Hays said:
I don't think the story was all that sloppy, but then my expectations for the NYT are not high. I remember too well their thoroughly fictional hit piece about McCain's non-existent "affair." Since the anti-Hillary left is based in the journalist/literary/artistic wing of the Dem party, a story fed to the NYT seems like a natural fit.
Click to expand...

They are trying to nudge Hillary out of the way, to get the left wing kook Pocahontas to run.

I can't take credit for this, but didn't Petraeus just plead guilty to a single count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material? I wonder how many classified documents were removed by Hillary to her home?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Care to reply to any specifics or just repeat the same claim over and over again?


Nope.. Lets try this again. And if you may, attempt to read the post because its going to be a "whole lot of words".

Lets first go to the definition section of the original bill:

There is a reason bills have definition sections.. This is what the term "records" is strictly defined as. The original act would of applied to Hillary is they used the word "records" on the next section of the original bill I'm about to post.

Original Act:

Nope not emails


More papers


Nope still not emails


Nope not emails


Hmmm so under section (2) they can collect all of the listed items, even if they came from a private sources. They listed certain items though. They left out a key several key itmes from the original defintion of "record". Those are the words "other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics". So no, this power was severly limited, and the orginal 1950 records act did not allow the procession of private emails. It was limited to strict limitations. Its also clear that that my point is true, is because they dont use the word "records", so therfore emails, which would fall under "other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics", is not covered under the original 1950 records act.
Click to expand...

Look, you're running around all over the place in an attempt to explain why Hillary is free and clear. She isn't. The fact that the 2014 Act clarifies exactly what constitutes an item worthy of record doesn't eliminate the original Act and the clearly stated requirement to maintain records. This is well known, and the 2014 Act is precisely to eliminate the gray areas the Bush administration exploited - none of which excused them. Simply put, outside of the admission that GOP servers were used, nothing was uncovered which would allow prosecution for anything, which I agree is alarming. Unfortunately for Hillary, somethings have been uncovered and it's a near certainty that more will be forthcoming - regardless if the emails have been deleted from her server - and I'm sure they were a long time ago.



Which one exactly?[/QUOTE]

In her case, the high level one. Don't know it's official title, and don't really care. If you're interested, you can look it up. Shouldn't be hard to find.
 
humbolt said:
Look, you're running around all over the place in an attempt to explain why Hillary is free and clear. She isn't. The fact that the 2014 Act clarifies exactly what constitutes an item worthy of record doesn't eliminate the original Act and the clearly stated requirement to maintain records. This is well known, and the 2014 Act is precisely to eliminate the gray areas the Bush administration exploited - none of which excused them. Simply put, outside of the admission that GOP servers were used, nothing was uncovered which would allow prosecution for anything, which I agree is alarming. Unfortunately for Hillary, somethings have been uncovered and it's a near certainty that more will be forthcoming - regardless if the emails have been deleted from her server - and I'm sure they were a long time ago.



Which one exactly?
Click to expand...

In her case, the high level one. Don't know it's official title, and don't really care. If you're interested, you can look it up. Shouldn't be hard to find.[/QUOTE]

Deleted is never really deleted.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Do I "trust her"? For the most part no. I am no fan of Hilary Clinton's, I am not "#readyforHilary", I think she is another typical war hawk. But I am not going to falsely accuse her of breaking a law just because I dont like her.
Click to expand...

Nor would I. However, I would note that just because an offender isn't apprehended doesn't mean a crime hasn't been committed. Why it took so long for this problem to come to light is puzzling. Many people knew. It appears that sensitive and classified information passed through her server. That's serious - just ask Petraeus. We'll see what happens and how far it goes. I think the release of this now indicates Hillary wants to test it before she announces a campaign to see if the repercussions would prevent her running.
 
Jack Hays said:
In her case, the high level one. Don't know it's official title, and don't really care. If you're interested, you can look it up. Shouldn't be hard to find.
Click to expand...

Deleted is never really deleted.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

True, depending on exactly how far the investigators are willing to go and the access they have. I'm pretty shocked this problem didn't get noticed a long time ago.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom