• 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!

Hillary iIndictment

Apparently you believe she can do no wrong.

If that's what you got out of my post, I would seriously question your ability to interpret facts.

Among other things, I called what she did: dumb, illegal, and against policy. I furthermore said she should know better. I insinuated she was old and out of touch with the technology and with our times. Yet somehow, you read what I said and understood it to mean that I saw her as unable to do any wrong.

This says a lot about your ability to parse information.

Since when was stupidity an excuse?

I never said it was excusable. You again read one thing and understand something else entirely.

The private sector has this all figured out for at least 10 years or more by now.

No, they don't. What gave you the impression they do? It's the same everywhere; the experts have it all figured out, but how do you re-train the previous generation?

I call bull****. Because incompetency is a bottom less pit to be casting money into.

Wait, you just made up your preferred argument and then rebutted it yourself? strawman much?
 
If that's what you got out of my post, I would seriously question your ability to interpret facts.

Among other things, I called what she did: dumb, illegal, and against policy. I furthermore said she should know better. I insinuated she was old and out of touch with the technology and with our times. Yet somehow, you read what I said and understood it to mean that I saw her as unable to do any wrong.

This says a lot about your ability to parse information.



I never said it was excusable. You again read one thing and understand something else entirely.



No, they don't. What gave you the impression they do? It's the same everywhere; the experts have it all figured out, but how do you re-train the previous generation?

Do you work in the private sector? Any business of any reasonable size has the windows desktops and laptops locked down so that user accounts can't install any software, nor run any unauthorized software. Running unauthorized software is grounds for immediate dismissal. No removable media permitted nor accessible. Data that belongs to the company always remains on the company's computing infrastructure. This has been going on for at least 10 years. Sounds like the federal government IT needs to do the same, to use the private sector as an example to emulate.

Re-train the previous generation? Don't give them the chance to go astray from the necessary and prudent information security rules. On day 1 orientation, 'These are the facts of life folks. Get used to them. It's this or typewriters and faxes. Secure faxes at that'. Heck, you could get some of the NSA boys to conduct the training and the periodic required audits.

Wait, you just made up your preferred argument and then rebutted it yourself? strawman much?
 
I'm beginning to wonder if this woman is even capable of righteousness and honesty. It seems everything she does is scandalous. I'm pretty pissed off that trump is going to be the GOP nominee. But the other choice is this dirty lying sack or san-duhs who couldn't hammer a nail. Come on, really? This is BS! If we weren't sold a bill crap with obama, trump wouldn't even be a topic today.
 
Do you work in the private sector? Any business of any reasonable size has the windows desktops and laptops locked down so that user accounts can't install any software, nor run any unauthorized software. Running unauthorized software is grounds for immediate dismissal. No removable media permitted nor accessible. Data that belongs to the company always remains on the company's computing infrastructure. This has been going on for at least 10 years. Sounds like the federal government IT needs to do the same, to use the private sector as an example to emulate.

LOL!

I wish I lived in the world you live in.

The private sector is far worse.

The government has standards. When you find people doing dumb things you can point to a STIG they are violating and force them to fix it. The private sector usually doesn't have any standards unless they happen to be covered by HIPAA, FISMA, or are somehow subject to some form of regulation. When you find them doing dumb things you have to start at square one and prove to them why what they are doing is dumb. Nine times out of ten, if it would cost them any more money or hassle, or if the guy doing the dumb thing is of a high enough ranking, you won't win the argument. The government gives you a hammer with which to whack people into shape. Private companies give you nothing. In the end, all you can do is give them suggestions that they don't follow anyway. The private sector is far worse. I'm not sure how you came up with the idea that they aren't.
 
Last edited:
LOL!

I wish I lived in the world you live in.

The private sector is far worse.

The government has standards. When you find people doing dumb things you can point to a STIG they are violating and force them to fix it. The private sector usually doesn't have any standards unless they happen to be covered by HIPAA, FISMA, or are somehow subject to some form of regulation. When you find them doing dumb things you have to start at square one and prove to them why what they are doing is dumb. Nine times out of ten, if it would cost them any more money or hassle, or if the guy doing the dumb thing is of a high enough ranking, you won't win the argument. The government gives you a hammer with which to whack people into shape. Private companies give you nothing. In the end, all you can do is give them suggestions that they don't follow anyway. The private sector is far worse. I'm not sure how you came up with the idea that they aren't.

Pretty clear that you've not worked much in the private sector in an organization that actually cares about their information security. Too bad.

Professionally run private sector organizations have written policies, so you are wrong there.

The hammer that you refer to as missing is immediate dismissal. So you are wrong there.

CSO's who have a data breech on their record might as well retire or change jobs, no one will hire them with one on their watch, so they are extremely serious about information security and policy compliance. So you are wrong once again.

The bank that I work for is very serious about information security and have fired people, senior technical people that should know better, for violations of policy. There is no 'high enough ranking' for violations, as the CSO reports directly to the CEO and the board. So you are wrong about this as well.

Based on your incorrect responses about the private sector, I have to wonder if you've worked in anything other than the public sector? Where all these transgressions you speak of appear to be occurring all the time, as you've posted, and information security is so lax that these transgressions and violations of policy are just 'you won't win the argument'.
 
Pretty clear that you've not worked much in the private sector in an organization that actually cares about their information security. Too bad.

So now you're correcting your original statements. It started out being a claim that the private sector itself is vastly superior. Now it's a claim that some companies in the private sector, which care about their information security are better than some parts of government.

Professionally run private sector organizations have written policies, so you are wrong there.

Sure, but most of those policies boil down to telling employees not to look at porn or do anything illegal. Companies with comprehensive IT Security policies outside of certain regulated sectors (IT, financial, health, and government contracts) are few and far in between.

The way it works most of the time is that company X has been making widgets since the 1950s, at some points in the 80s and 90 they started adding some technology to improve their business. At some point in the 2000s and 2010s they realized they needed to hire someone to oversee all of that stuff. They hired that person in early 2010 and he's had so much work to do that he hasn't had time to sit down and write policies, in fact he's probably barely even had time to think about security since he's more concerned with migrating those machines that run the production line and can't be switched from Windows 95 because the vendor that created the software that makes the widgets went out of business some 20 years ago and new versions of the software don't exist and don't run on modern Operating Systems.

The hammer that you refer to as missing is immediate dismissal. So you are wrong there.

I'm not wrong at all. You're just living in a fantasy world where companies are well run and have well developed corporate policies for all important areas. That's just not how real life works. That's how things SHOULD work. But it's not the world we actually live in. In the world we actually live in, corporations are far worse than the government in this area whether you like it or not.

CSO's who have a data breech on their record might as well retire or change jobs, no one will hire them with one on their watch, so they are extremely serious about information security and policy compliance. So you are wrong once again.

LOL. You juts make this stuff up? In most large corporations, it's the CIO who would be responsible, not the CSO. In most small and medium sized companies there isn't anyone who would be responsible.

The bank that I work for is very serious about information security and have fired people, senior technical people that should know better, for violations of policy. There is no 'high enough ranking' for violations, as the CSO reports directly to the CEO and the board. So you are wrong about this as well.

Financial services is a regulated industry; they have to meet PCI-DSS and other financial standards. I already mentioned that some industries which are subject to regulation are exceptions.

Based on your incorrect responses about the private sector, I have to wonder if you've worked in anything other than the public sector? Where all these transgressions you speak of appear to be occurring all the time, as you've posted, and information security is so lax that these transgressions and violations of policy are just 'you won't win the argument'.

It seems you're just making things up as you go along here and are living in a fantasy world that in no way resembles ours.
 
Last edited:
So now you're correcting your original statements. It started out being a claim that the private sector itself is vastly superior. Now it's a claim that some companies in the private sector, which care about their information security are better than some parts of government.



Sure, but most of those policies boil down to telling employees not to look at porn or do anything illegal. Companies with comprehensive IT Security policies outside of certain regulated sectors (IT, financial, health, and government contracts) are few and far in between.

The way it works most of the time is that company X has been making widgets since the 1950s, at some points in the 80s and 90 they started adding some technology to improve their business. At some point in the 2000s and 2010s they realized they needed to hire someone to oversee all of that stuff. They hired that person in early 2010 and he's had so much work to do that he hasn't had time to sit down and write policies, in fact he's probably barely even had time to think about security since he's more concerned with migrating those machines that run the production line and can't be switched from Windows 95 because the vendor that created the software that makes the widgets went out of business some 20 years ago and new versions of the software don't exist and don't run on modern Operating Systems.



I'm not wrong at all. You're just living in a fantasy world where companies are well run and have well developed corporate policies for all important areas. That's just not how real life works. That's how things SHOULD work. But it's not the world we actually live in. In the world we actually live in, corporations are far worse than the government in this area whether you like it or not.



LOL. You juts make this stuff up? In most large corporations, it's the CIO who would be responsible, not the CSO. In most small and medium sized companies there isn't anyone who would be responsible.



Financial services is a regulated industry; they have to meet PCI-DSS and other financial standards. I already mentioned that some industries which are subject to regulation are exceptions.



It seems you're just making things up as you go along here and are living in a fantasy world that in no way resembles ours.

This is rich. You call it a fantasy world, and I'm going to work there every working day. LOL. I think it's you who's making stuff up.
 
One step closer to indictment?

State Department report slams Clinton email use
A State Department Inspector General report said former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton failed to follow the rules or inform key department staff regarding her use of a private email server, according to a copy of the report obtained by CNN on Wednesday. The report, which was provided to lawmakers, states, "At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act."


The report says, "According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary's personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further." The same director reportedly "instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary's personal email system again."
So squash the knowledge from spreading that Hillary had a private email server. OK.
But the report notes that interviews with officials from the Under Secretary for Management and the Office of the Legal Adviser found "no knowledge of
approval or review by other Department staff" of the server.

Clinton has long maintained that she had permission to use personal email.

She told CNN's Brianna Keilar in July that "the truth is everything I did was permitted and I went above and beyond what anybody could have expected in making sure that if the State Department didn't capture something, I made a real effort to get it to them."

But the report says that the Inspector General's office "found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server."

Aaaannnd she's lying about having permission, having legal review the setup. Well already knew that she was a liar about all this.

The sole purpose for Hillary to have setup her private email server, and use it exclusively is to shield her official government correspondence from any FOIA requests. We can see this in the long list of FOIA requests that either went unfulfilled or didn't return the documents requested.

She's guilty as hell in not complying with the

The National Archives and Records Administration regulation, according to the report, says that "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system."
 
One step closer to indictment?


So squash the knowledge from spreading that Hillary had a private email server. OK.


Aaaannnd she's lying about having permission, having legal review the setup. Well already knew that she was a liar about all this.

The sole purpose for Hillary to have setup her private email server, and use it exclusively is to shield her official government correspondence from any FOIA requests. We can see this in the long list of FOIA requests that either went unfulfilled or didn't return the documents requested.

She's guilty as hell in not complying with the

God, I hope the indictment doesn't come before she is President.
 
Well, if she becomes president, her first pardon should be Edward Snowden, and her second Bradley Manning, and her third General Petraeus.
 
God, I hope the indictment doesn't come before she is President.

Why?

I'd just as soon see her indicted before the general election, and some pundits are saying before the DNC convention.

I guess we'll see how this plays out, but why would you want her to be elected president, indicted, removed from office, and her VP taking the office?
 
Why?

I'd just as soon see her indicted before the general election, and some pundits are saying before the DNC convention.

I guess we'll see how this plays out, but why would you want her to be elected president, indicted, removed from office, and her VP taking the office?

No, I think I would prefer her VP to Trump, though, she might install a poison pill like Nixon did.
 
No, I think I would prefer her VP to Trump, though, she might install a poison pill like Nixon did.

Hillary might pull in Bernie as VP to more unify the turn out in the general. If she's then indicted and drops out leaving Bernie, I'd want that to happen before the general, and not after. I can't think of a case where I'd want to have Hillary indicted after winning the general, as it pretty much invalidate the election, vote for Hillary and her VP, and only end up with her VP. This indictment needs to be filed, if it's going to be filed, before the general.
 
Hillary might pull in Bernie as VP to more unify the turn out in the general. If she's then indicted and drops out leaving Bernie, I'd want that to happen before the general, and not after. I can't think of a case where I'd want to have Hillary indicted after winning the general, as it pretty much invalidate the election, vote for Hillary and her VP, and only end up with her VP. This indictment needs to be filed, if it's going to be filed, before the general.

Let's see, how potent the poison is that she puts in the pill.
 
No, I think I would prefer her VP to Trump, though, she might install a poison pill like Nixon did.

Or Bush....or Obama....
 
Back
Top Bottom