FBI has Hillary Clinton emails from home server, official says

ballantine said:

How about "thanks to Johnson, Nixon, and GHW Bush, who helped us kill Kennedy"?

Why is our government keeping deep dark secrets from fifty years ago?

I can only think of one reason...

Click to expand...

ludin said:

Yeah and her lying that she had no classified information on that server just cost her a perjury charge.

Click to expand...

she should be disqualified for office.

Click to expand...

to think that she is the front runner for the democrats says they are in worse shape than republicans.

Click to expand...

ludin said:

Yeah and her lying that she had no classified information on that server just cost her a perjury charge.
she should be disqualified for office.

her wiping the email server is destruction of evidence that is another charge right there.
there is no defending this women.

to think that she is the front runner for the democrats says they are in worse shape than republicans.

Click to expand...

nota bene said:

A blast from the past (March 2015):

“I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email,” Mrs. Clinton said at a news conference on Tuesday at the United Nations. “I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/u...-clinton-some-experts-are-skeptical.html?_r=0

Click to expand...

Μολὼν λαβέ;1064919313 said:

Are you serious? Democrats see nothing wrong with anything Hillary has done. She's still the leading candidate in the democrat polls.That to me is more concerning than Hillary's unethical and illegal actions. How could anyone think she is qualified to be POTUS? What has this country come to?

Click to expand...

ballantine said:

It's not about the information, it's about the fact that it's being kept secret, in direct contravention of two federal laws.

If you'd like to discuss conspiracies, I suggest you do so in the relevant section. It is an indisputable fact that this government is keeping over fifty thousand documents from the 60's illegally hidden.

National security is anything the president says it is. If the president says "it is vital that we prove Oswald killed Kennedy", then that becomes national security. The president can classify and declassify documents at will. Bush 43 did it in volume, he even reclassified some stuff that had already been declassified.

Click to expand...

NonoBadDog said:

FBI has Hillary Clinton emails from home server, official says
FBI has Hillary Clinton emails from home server, official says | Fox News

WASHINGTON – The FBI has taken possession of thumb drives containing Hillary Clinton's emails, some of which have been deemed to contain highly sensitive classified information, according to a U.S. official briefed on the matter.
The official was not authorized to be quoted publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall, turned over the emails after the FBI determined that he could not remain in possession of the classified information, the official said. The State Department previously had said it was comfortable with Kendall keeping the emails at his Washington law office.

The news came as Sen. Charles Grassley said two of the emails, which traversed Clinton's insecure home email server, were deemed "Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information," which is among the government's highest classifications.



Well, of course the State Department felt comfortable with Kendall keeping "Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information" in his office. Hell, why not?

About damn time.

Click to expand...

ludin said:

Yeah and her lying that she had no classified information on that server just cost her a perjury charge.
she should be disqualified for office.

her wiping the email server is destruction of evidence that is another charge right there.
there is no defending this women.

to think that she is the front runner for the democrats says they are in worse shape than republicans.

Click to expand...

NonoBadDog said:

FBI has Hillary Clinton emails from home server, official says
FBI has Hillary Clinton emails from home server, official says | Fox News

WASHINGTON – The FBI has taken possession of thumb drives containing Hillary Clinton's emails, some of which have been deemed to contain highly sensitive classified information, according to a U.S. official briefed on the matter.
The official was not authorized to be quoted publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall, turned over the emails after the FBI determined that he could not remain in possession of the classified information, the official said. The State Department previously had said it was comfortable with Kendall keeping the emails at his Washington law office.

The news came as Sen. Charles Grassley said two of the emails, which traversed Clinton's insecure home email server, were deemed "Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information," which is among the government's highest classifications.



Well, of course the State Department felt comfortable with Kendall keeping "Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information" in his office. Hell, why not?

About damn time.

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

Agreed, about dam time.

Hillary and her campaign, her lawyer, Obama's State Department the bunch of them, have draw this out this long. About dam time that someone with some backbone, such as a federal judge and an IG, stood up and called BS on all this obstruction.

Click to expand...

pbrauer said:

If those emails were indeed top secret, why were they not encrypted?

Click to expand...

Risky Thicket said:

I read somewhere that a business in Denver set up and maintained the email server. I'd like to know more about that company and how Hillary came to be connected with them and if they were vetted and cleared. Who paid for it? Somebody somewhere had to saying, "WTF? This ain't right."

The Clintons have reportedly always been dismissive of security. I remember a flap about Bill Clinton's staff. Then there was Los Alamos.

I was outraged in 1999. Clinton inviting the Chinese right on into Los Alamos secure areas and labs. A lot of people were pissed. Clinton was cavalier about that as well. And now his wife is like "Security, pfft. **** 'em."

Click to expand...

pbrauer said:

If those emails were indeed top secret, why were they not encrypted?

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

An off the wall question that's not part of the present discussion, but never the less . . . . .

How well do you read cypher text? How well does any human read cypher text?

Any encrypted information has to be decrypted in order to be read by a human, which is the point, after all.

The proper securing of this sensitive information would be that email is stored on the server in encrypted form, and when called up, it's sent in encrypted format to the display device, which would decrypt it, just in case the communications channel the is being eaves dropped. Further, the encryption mechanism itself would be able to identify if it had been compromised by a 'man in the middle' attack.

Now, secure encrypted systems need to occasionally exchange data with unsecured and unencrypted systems. The sending secure system decrypts the message to send it to the destination that doesn't support encryption. Yes, that's a security hole about as wide as a Mack truck.

Secure systems should only be communicating with other, vetted, known to be secure and trusted systems, for one, and secure systems shouldn't allow data marked as confidential to be sent with unsecured system. The ability to do this would appear to be a flaw in the State's email system.

To be secure, secure systems should be closed systems, only allowing data exchange from other known, proven to be secure and trusted systems. If the need is to exchange email with other insecure systems, then that needs to be a separate unsecured email system for exchanging only non-sensitive information. Essentially separate red and gold networks such as the CIA maintains. 'The twain shall never meet' is the watchword for real information security. There appears to be no such discipline in this case, at least not that has been revealed to date.

All this encryption is a lot of overhead and trouble for someone's basement email server, so it's not often done, and I doubt that it was done in Hillary's case, but forensic examination of the email server should quickly determine if it had this level of security or not. I rather doubt it. It's a fair amount of work and trouble to set it up, and maintain it, and keep it operating properly.

It is, however, something that a government department, such as State, would have to implemented in their secure email system, and also, something that SoS would have had access to, and use of, had she used the official email system. All the more reason to use that system, rather than a roll your own.

The issue on Hillary's mind isn't information security, although it should have been, it's always been about control, her control. It would appear that she wanted absolute control over what information State would have, the archivists would have, absolute control over everyone else. Problem is, that's not how it's supposed to work.

Had Hillary ever worked in the private sector, she would have already realized and become accustomed to, the idea that her emails while in the employ of State aren't her emails, they are State's emails, written on behalf of State on State equipment on State's time, and that she has no right in the slightest of asserting any sort of control over those emails.

This is how it works in business. This is how it works in government. Anything written, collected, saved, invented, while employed by a company, on the company's time is the company's and they own it lock, stock and barrel. This is the same as the government which owes Hillary's emails and anything else she may have invented, written, or spoke.

It appears that Hillary just figures that the normal rules that apply to mere mortals simply don't apply to her; the only possible response to this has to be 'yes they do, without exception'. It's yet another example, among many others, where she feels that 'normal rules don't apply to her'. So how can she possibly understand, appreciate or identify with 'the common man', who's rules she holds in such contempt? Yeah, that's a campaign and stump speech fail right there. Her actions speak volumes and much louder than her empty words, typically delivered in an unbelievable emotionally lacking manner.

(And yes, I do have experience in the information processing field, and some experience working under information security disciplines, but I'd not be so bold as to call myself an expert, but only knowledgeable to the extent that I am).

Click to expand...

pbrauer said:

If those emails were indeed top secret, why were they not encrypted?

Click to expand...

Risky Thicket said:

I read somewhere that a business in Denver set up and maintained the email server. I'd like to know more about that company and how Hillary came to be connected with them and if they were vetted and cleared. Who paid for it? Somebody somewhere had to saying, "WTF? This ain't right."

The Clintons have reportedly always been dismissive of security. I remember a flap about Bill Clinton's staff. Then there was Los Alamos.

I was outraged in 1999. Clinton inviting the Chinese right on into Los Alamos secure areas and labs. A lot of people were pissed. Clinton was cavalier about that as well. And now his wife is like "Security, pfft. **** 'em."

Click to expand...

Μολὼν λαβέ;1064919313 said:

Are you serious? Democrats see nothing wrong with anything Hillary has done. She's still the leading candidate in the democrat polls.That to me is more concerning than Hillary's unethical and illegal actions. How could anyone think she is qualified to be POTUS?

What has this country come to?

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

An off the wall question that's not part of the present discussion, but never the less . . . . .

How well do you read cypher text? How well does any human read cypher text?

Any encrypted information has to be decrypted in order to be read by a human, which is the point, after all.

The proper securing of this sensitive information would be that email is stored on the server in encrypted form, and when called up, it's sent in encrypted format to the display device, which would decrypt it, just in case the communications channel the is being eaves dropped. Further, the encryption mechanism itself would be able to identify if it had been compromised by a 'man in the middle' attack.

Now, secure encrypted systems need to occasionally exchange data with unsecured and unencrypted systems. The sending secure system decrypts the message to send it to the destination that doesn't support encryption. Yes, that's a security hole about as wide as a Mack truck.

Secure systems should only be communicating with other, vetted, known to be secure and trusted systems, for one, and secure systems shouldn't allow data marked as confidential to be sent with unsecured system. The ability to do this would appear to be a flaw in the State's email system.

To be secure, secure systems should be closed systems, only allowing data exchange from other known, proven to be secure and trusted systems. If the need is to exchange email with other insecure systems, then that needs to be a separate unsecured email system for exchanging only non-sensitive information. Essentially separate red and gold networks such as the CIA maintains. 'The twain shall never meet' is the watchword for real information security. There appears to be no such discipline in this case, at least not that has been revealed to date.

All this encryption is a lot of overhead and trouble for someone's basement email server, so it's not often done, and I doubt that it was done in Hillary's case, but forensic examination of the email server should quickly determine if it had this level of security or not. I rather doubt it. It's a fair amount of work and trouble to set it up, and maintain it, and keep it operating properly.

It is, however, something that a government department, such as State, would have to implemented in their secure email system, and also, something that SoS would have had access to, and use of, had she used the official email system. All the more reason to use that system, rather than a roll your own.

The issue on Hillary's mind isn't information security, although it should have been, it's always been about control, her control. It would appear that she wanted absolute control over what information State would have, the archivists would have, absolute control over everyone else. Problem is, that's not how it's supposed to work.

Had Hillary ever worked in the private sector, she would have already realized and become accustomed to, the idea that her emails while in the employ of State aren't her emails, they are State's emails, written on behalf of State on State equipment on State's time, and that she has no right in the slightest of asserting any sort of control over those emails.

This is how it works in business. This is how it works in government. Anything written, collected, saved, invented, while employed by a company, on the company's time is the company's and they own it lock, stock and barrel. This is the same as the government which owes Hillary's emails and anything else she may have invented, written, or spoke.

It appears that Hillary just figures that the normal rules that apply to mere mortals simply don't apply to her; the only possible response to this has to be 'yes they do, without exception'. It's yet another example, among many others, where she feels that 'normal rules don't apply to her'. So how can she possibly understand, appreciate or identify with 'the common man', who's rules she holds in such contempt? Yeah, that's a campaign and stump speech fail right there. Her actions speak volumes and much louder than her empty words, typically delivered in an unbelievable emotionally lacking manner.

(And yes, I do have experience in the information processing field, and some experience working under information security disciplines, but I'd not be so bold as to call myself an expert, but only knowledgeable to the extent that I am).

Click to expand...