Uh oh. Hillary just got slammed by State
Submitted by PastorAgnostic on Wed, 05/25/2016 - 10:28am
Top page - Hillary did not have permisso, did not seek permisso, and would not have ever received permisso to use a private mail server.
I do believe the end is neigh for her campaign.
She just doesn't know it.
On edit. I have jury service today. The wee fee is spotty, and did not see the errors of my ways or means (or spelling) until now.
Comments
Let me guess.
Certain people and places are trying to spin this as a positive development.
"That's good news ... for Hillary!"
"The real power is in the hands of small groups of people and I don't think they have titles. -- Bob Dylan"
I think...
You've just created an historical meme for this site.
Democrats, we tried to warn you. How is that guilt and shame working out?
Not everyone . . .
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-email-terrorism-philippines-thai...
Violating policy
Good thing she's not a little person, or she'd go to jail.
You should quote this in your essay.
I wonder if this will get noticed on GOS, and if it does, what will the spin be?
So I was curious what the spin was on TOP
It turns out that ALL of the previous SoS did the exact same thing! Who knew?
There you go. Now you don't have to go to GOS yourself to find out why this isn't important.
Why not?
That is the spin in the WaPo article that discusses report. And the report itself also criticizes Powell. So if Colin Powell jumped off a bridge would Hillary? Probably.
Democrats, we tried to warn you. How is that guilt and shame working out?
If Colin Powell
If Colin Powell supported an illegal and disastrous invasion of a country that did not attack the US, would Hillary?
Another simple answer to an easy question.
Well, yes. D'oh.
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
Kerry's in the photo at TOP, but I don't think he's named
in the report. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
If I'm not wrong, I think it's disgusting they are smearing him over there. I'm not any great Kerry-lover, but I believe he's got a higher level of integrity.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Kerry is not responsible for Clinton
He was busy being a Senator during her stint as SoS.
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
Regarding Kerry
the NYT article said:
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
You see what they're doing, don't you?
Hello? USING A PERSONAL EMAIL ACCOUNT is not the same thing as SETTING UP A PRIVATE SERVER IN YOUR HOME THAT CIRCUMVENTS AND COMPROMISES SECURITY ON YOUR EMPLOYERS INTERNAL NETWORK COMPUTER NETWORK.
How fucking stupid do you have to be to not get that, even on a cursory read? Blurring the line between "email account" and "email server" is despicable and fake reporting.
Please understand something. They get it. They get it veey well.
What you see there is an attempt to cause misunderstanding among the general public regarding a key detail that sounds similar but is actually a completely different thing. The statement you quoted is very obvious propaganda that depends upon the tech-savvy readers not knowing the difference between a server and an account.
Using people's ignorance regarding a technical matter against them, to create a "oh, so everyone already does it anyway, nothing to see here, exonerate Hillary" response is very blatant propaganda if you know what the difference is between an account and a server. Many people dont, don't believe there's a significant difference, and dont care to learn because its just more Hillary hatred.
I know that and you know that
And honestly, I think a lot more people than either of us tend to give them credit for all know that by now. What is so ridiculous to me lately is that we're all not as stupid about stuff like this as we were even ten years ago. The "average user" is a lot savvier. So this is a lot more apparent to a lot more people, or at least their sense of "these people are just insulting my intelligence; what a ridiculous argument...". So yeah, as you note, it's
But even if you don't, there is simply no more perpetuating this idea that it's
because that argument is collapsing under the bloated weight of actual facts.
Damn - itchy return key finger
Please excuse the duplicate post.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
but Democrats are supposed to be better than that
doesn't matter that Republican SOS's did it. just one more notch that Democrats operate the same as Republicans. lawd, the spin.
Spotted weefee prevented me from doing so.
Thanks for the quote.
I managed to download the 83 page report, while waiting to see if I serve on a jury today. While waiting, I read it over. Huh. She be in trouble.
Pretty bad, huh?
Funny, I was just over at dkos and didn't see that.
Seriously though, I didn't see BNR over there.
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
BNR was posted really early this morning
so it's no surprise it's been pushed off their "wreck" list....
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/25/1530676/-BNR-Sanders-In-Anahei...
Link Please NT
From the Light House.
Sorry
It is around on this thread
The WHY of why she would have been told not to use a private
server is and always has been FOIA.
Since she used that private server the entire length of her Term and the 2 years which followed, she violated the regulations of the FOIA for six years -- knowingly. Because any FOIA requests submitted during that time returned results omitting any relevant information on that server.
In effect, she broke a federal law. Multiple times. For years on end.
www.Angie4Congress.com
#StrongerTogether for a better future for OUR posterity
Yeah, apparently that doesn't apply in her case...
or so it would seem.
Seems very likely a lesser mortal would serve jail time for such a stack of offenses.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
"Not a crime"
is the spin, and it's being repeated over and over.
In other GOS news, Valtin, who is (was) highly recommended there, is now being flagged to oblivion for daring to criticise Kos's The Hill red-baiting Hit piece on Sanders.
TOP is going to hell in a handbasket very quickly.
I hope it folds sooner rather than later. I hope Advertisers are beginning to notice that it is no longer a Left-wing Blog.
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
How is it "not a crime"?
when the guy who set up her server had to get an immunity deal before he would testify at all?
Of course it was a crime. You don't get an immunity deal based on a whim or five of some perceived political witch-hunt--immunity deals happen when crimes have been committed. They can repeat "not a crime" until they choke on it, for all the good it is going to do them.
HOPE she's gone --
and maybe to the pokey. Would be an improvement on behalf of the world --
When Cicero had finished speaking, the people said “How well he spoke”.
When Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said “Let us march”.
Here's the direct link to the article
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-c...
This is interesting:
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Aha!
Stonewalling? That ought to work out great. She might have sneaked a mea culpa, sorry. Too late. But some indication Powell was a little loose, too? So the top guys cannot follow or understand instructions. Ultimate Peter Principle?
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Colin Powell had an aol account. Hardly the same thing
He had no ability to go into AOL server's and wipe or erase anything he wouldn't like to see the light of day. He had two accounts - a State Department account and a personal account (like most people would have done in the same circumstances) and he accessed his private account from a PC set up on internet access outside of the State secured system - as State offered to do for Hillary.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
No. These MSM "comparisons" are completely fact-free
Please, try not to perpetuate the notion they report, in which "Hillary didn't do it first". Because that's a goddamned lie, straight up.
It's worse than a lie if that's how it's being reported
See my reply above. If you know the differences between the things they are reporting, the propaganda is obvious.
I mean "propaganda" in the traditional sense.
Absolutely correct.
So when does it stop? When does Hillary get disqualified from running for POTUS? She is damaged goods that cannot win the general. Her only competition needs to be the one that's nominated for the Dem ticket if that party wants to win in November.
These "investigations" need to pay off before the California primary, or it doesn't matter, because Sanders needs to clean her clock there in order to be in the position to take over as nominee.
The "buying time" motif is getting old.
Your's is the rational response and rational conclusion
But this is 2016. A US and A, a presiduncial erection. A season of electorical, allegorical, irrational, unbelievable, and irretrievable collections of . . . . I do not even know where to begin. This is the most bizarre electoral season I have ever seen, even if this Flat Earth has seen that turtle pulled Sol cross 59 times.
EVEN Mare Daley (dad, not increasingly unpopular son Richie M) when he sent cops to knock down hippie skulls, experienced any thing as bizarre.
That whole article is pretty damning
This:
and this:
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Whoa, wait a minute.
Why make the assumption that a "non-departmental advisor" to President Clinton was Bryan Pagliano? Bryan Pagliano was departmental - he was a State Department employee in the IT department. Bill Clinton himself was not a part of State, so why would he ever have a "departmental" advisor in the first place? I've read that the server was shared with the Clinton Foundation - this is making me wonder if one of WJC's aides also had deep access to the server and was shutting it down after noticing hacking attempts. This raises the question of whether Clinton Foundation employees had access to Hillary's State Department messages.
Or, if it was Pagliano, what is he doing advising Bill Clinton, while on the payroll of the State Department? I recall reading he was paid initially to set up the server out-of-pocket by the Clintons, but I don't recall him being a concurrent advisor to Bill while at State.
This also is an admission that they had to be cautioned against sending "sensitive" stuff, meaning they were in the habit of sending sensitive stuff.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
Bingo, pho!
Given that he was also provided with immunity and afterwards, still refused to testify, suggests just how big of a deal this is. And will be.
This is the first brick in removing her from the candidacy. Glad Bernie is still in it.
I believe I read the sequence went like this
I believe Pagliano had been working for the Clinton Foundation and set up the server FOR BILL ahead of her appointment as SOS, and that Pagliano then kept up with the technical work when Hillary wanted to run her own correspondence out of the home office when she got to state. And yes, she put Pagliano on the payroll of State when that transpired.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
If you read the e-mail timeline...
Pagliano is pretty prominent. He was both the persona IT department for Hillary's e-mail server AND he was hired at State as an 'IT Consultant'. It smells like an odor.
Democrats, we tried to warn you. How is that guilt and shame working out?
Speaking of timeline
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1699656706954539/
This group has done extensive research on her serve and created a detailed timeline.
Take a peak.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
This is the timeline to end all timelines.
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Short_Version_-_Part_1
thank you, good link
This kinna jumped out at me:
January 15, 2008 - September 30, 2013: The State Department has no permanent inspector general for the entire time Clinton is secretary of state. Instead, an acting inspector with close ties to State Department leadership fills the role. An inspector general is an internal watchdog tasked with discovering mismanagement and corruption. The position goes vacant in January 2008. President Obama doesn't nominate anyone to fill the position for more than four years, making it the longest time any department ever went without a permanent one. In 2015, The Wall Street Journal will write, "The lack of a confirmed inspector general raises questions about oversight of the department under Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton." Matthew Harris, a professor who researches inspectors general, will later comment, "It's a convenient way to prevent oversight."
defaultcitizen
Yup...
Which blows away the argument (that Tweety was trying to forward) that states: "No body told it was wrong, so how could she know?". Because she had a Obama hack in the roll of watchdog.
Democrats, we tried to warn you. How is that guilt and shame working out?
Yeah, I was gonna go get a Thompson Timeline link ... but you
already did.
Pagliano wasn't exactly hired but rather
He was a political appointment, which is unheardrum of in an IT Department.
Oh shit, somehow a spotted weefee got in my apartment!
Today, downtown Seattle had a power outage, I am working in the tallest building in town of course but only had to go down 25 flights. But my knees were weeping and my hips cussing when I got to the bottom.
Pagliano wasn't exactly hired but rather
He was a political appointment, which is unheardrum of in an IT Department.
Oh shit, somehow a spotted weefee got in my apartment!
Today, downtown Seattle had a power outage, I am working in the tallest building in town of course but only had to go down 25 flights. But my knees were weeping and my hips cussing when I got to the bottom.
good catch Phoebe. Of course Clinton foundation used servers
They are like a Mafia family, above the law
Sea Turtle
The Arrogance
It reeks.
Duplicate
I'm blaming my private server
Are you typing on a phone, Pastor?
Whenever I type America, it changes it to American...
The worst part is I know exactly what this means!
Naw, a court jury waiting room.
Spotified weefee and a nasty spill chicken. But me psychic waves were strong.
Do we need to mount a rescue, Pastor Ag?
Spotified Wee Fees and Spill Chickens! Oh My!
Sounds like a terrifying place.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
Ha JayRaye! I wasn't even going to touch that one!
I was able to psychically divine the meaning of the original essay, but the spilled chickens foiled me.
Ever type something that was changed on your machine?
Tis the fault of your computer's spill chicken. Damned bird makes changes without permisso.
You made me LOL outloud
The weefee that came in my apartment didn't come with a Web music player!!!
You made me LOL outloud
The weefee that came in my apartment didn't come with a Web music player!!!
You made me LOL outloud
The weefee that came in my apartment didn't come with a Web music player!!!
You made me LOL outloud
The weefee that came in my apartment didn't come with a Web music player!!!
I think this is a classic tempest in a teapot.
I really couldn't care less that she had a private server. I don't think it was wise. But I couldn't care less. And I say that as someone who does NOT want Clinton to be the nominee, or the president. I don't want any Clinton in power, ever again.
In reality, what should be the focus won't ever be the focus, at least as far as her time at State goes. And that is the use of American power to force the privatization of public goods and services in other nations. The state department under Hillary did this especially to our south. Central and South America.
Not saying this was started by Clinton. It wasn't. It's been long-standing American policy to force other nations to accept capitalism, whether they wanted to or not. But her State Dept was aggressive in the pursuit of this, helping our capitalists, our corporations, smash their way into the Commons of other nations, thus destroying them.
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want to talk about this dirty little (not so) secret. But I'd much rather that be the focus than some silly witch hunt about emails.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
It's not a witch hunt, and it's not silly--though
It's certainly true that the Clinton Foundation and its arms deals is the much, much nastier of her sins as SoS.
She exposed this nation's secrets to the world for all to see. As a progressive, why should I care? Because she's full-throated in her condemnation of Snowden for doing the same thing--except he did it responsibly, on purpose, and for a good reason. As opposed to carelessly, not giving a damn, because rules don't apply to Clintons.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
There is a degree of difference...
Snowden exposed the extent in which our own government was spying on us. Hillary's exposure talked about Human intelligence which could have the net effect of directly costing lives.
Democrats, we tried to warn you. How is that guilt and shame working out?
Blue is the new Orange.
That gave me a chuckle!
Peace out, tmp.
Excellent point
I cannot agree.
Pagliano KNEW of two attacks on her server, and he knew the State requirements to report any and every attack. He committed a serious violation by not reporting it.
The problem is not that there were two attacks and two 5 minute shutdowns. The problem is those two attacks were probably sloppy and done by some teenager. A real hacker would not have been detected on an unprotected server. No one knows just when Mother Russia realized what a treasure trove was open to them.
It is a big deal.
I think you are 180 degrees (ed.) wrong...
1) The server was a private server in their home.
2) Hillary used this server exclusively for her SOS e-mail - after being repeatedly warned not to and after numerous offers to allow her access to her private e-mail behind the SCIF Firewall.
3) The server was not secure and easily hackable.
4) There is evidence that her official government e-mails were mixed with Clinton Foundation information.
5) There is evidence that persons not cleared by the State department, specifically Sid Blumenthal, had access to the server and the information (ed.).
6) And, this is a big one, there are multiple e-mails which contain CLASSIFIED information - including Human intelligence which is the most compartmentalized in the government.
It is a major fuckup.
Democrats, we tried to warn you. How is that guilt and shame working out?
And she was trying to avoid FOIA
by storing her co-mingled public and "personal" emails outside of the State Dept. servers and record system. (She also had her personal attorney erase about half of the email before turning them over to investigators only, surprise, they weren't entirely gone.)
I.e., the "private server" issue actually encompasses:
1. Security concern
PLUS
2. Appearance (at least) of multiple conflicts of interest between roles in the State Department and Clinton Foundation (including her chief assistant drawing paychecks from both at once, fastest "revolving door" in history, speed of light!)
PLUS
3. Trying to evade FOIA and other means of public oversight
All three interlinked. No accident or mere misstep, IMO.
Euterpe2
IMHO, the smoking gun
is in the erased emails and I am betting they have to do with the Clinton Foundation.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Well, I would bet at least
they weren't ALL discussing her next hair appointment or the latest episode of Game of Thrones...
Euterpe2
IMHO, the smoking gun is the mingled personal and govt email
Even if she didn't delete any government related emails, that's not the point.
I have FIVE email addresses. I keep my business email separate from my other emails. You can't tell me she couldn't have a separate work email - above and beyond the entire server thing. It's complete disregard for the laws of the country and for transparency.
Not to mention carrying the non-secure Blackberry
Everyone else was required to check non-secure devices and have them locked up when those individuals might come into contact with secure information. Clinton refused to do that, I gather.
And then there was the whole company which stored her emails which did not have security clearance and may have backup copies of ALL the emails.
The original utter lack of encryption of the emails...
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Good thing
The FBI recovered them.
That and "helping"
with certain primary states "voting" and "counting" and what-not, or at least a myriad of unsavory discussions with DWS about the upcoming voting and the debate schedule...
You are of course...
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want to talk about this dirty little (not so) secret. But I'd much rather that be the focus than some silly witch hunt about emails.free to write your own essay on this other topic.
I'd be interested to read it.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
My guess is...
The GOP is being quiet about this because they are hoping it breaks AFTER the nomination.
Democrats, we tried to warn you. How is that guilt and shame working out?
They have their fingers crossed... n/t
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Could be, but I have three issues with that.
1. They are not bright enough to connect the dots and come to the conclusions that we have reached here.
2. They have no clue how to uncross their fingers once they cross them. Watching them try to use a urinal afterwards is worthy of Larry Curly and Moe.
3. They have never held back criticism of any kind before. (Obama, Sanders, Hillary, Kerry, the list is long) This would be a first. WHile they are devious and amoral, I don't see that kind of well thought out planning taking place. Just look at Planned parenthood. A fake video, and they all pile on like lemmings. They don't do self-restraint and planning.
If you don't think the Clinton server is a big deal, you do not
understand computers, servers, security and how exposed our country was and still probably is. Furthermore as others have said, it definitely covered up 'pay to play' in the ClintonMafiaFamilyFoundation.
This is a BFD!
Sea Turtle
I agree with the pay to play emails.
She would not want those to go through the State Dept. system.
That is an extremely serious accusation, but I suspect it's accurate.
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
Has this been independently confirmed?
That's my issue here. The Republicans have spent more than a year's time and millions of taxpayer dollars to sink her on this. Are you and others in this thread talking about independently verified info on security issues and so on? Non-partisan, objective info.
Beyond that. Yes, I do understand computers, security and the Internet. I did tech support for 15 years. And it's because I understand how things work that I have a hard time believing the people who set up her server would have left it all exposed. Generally speaking, if people know enough to set up an email server, they know enough to secure it. Add on the fact of them knowing it was for the State Department, and I really doubt they were this lax.
Is it possible? Sure. Absolutely. But I'm not ready to condemn her on this one until I see the evidence.
And, again, I don't want her anywhere near the White House. I don't want her in the Senate, either. Can't stand her neoliberalism or her hawkishness, etc.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
What is your criteria for "independent confirmation"?
If it wasn't possible, it wouldn't be quite as critical that you, the voter, be able to come to overall conclusions about this woman's fitness for office. Particularly when the "mainstream reporting" about it takes great pains to conflate the difference between an email account and an email server.
Please, I'm curious as to how you think we can all be absolutely sure, before we condemn her, that she's actually worth condemning?
Never said "absolute certainty" was necessary.
And there is more than enough to condemn Clinton (and the Democratic Party establishment), without a single thing being said about the email server. There are a multitude of other reasons NOT to vote for her. I don't need the email server issue at all, and made up my mind about her long ago.
If she wins the nom, I'm voting for Jill Stein.
I think she's a terrible candidate, and I don't trust her in the slightest. Nor do I want her within miles of the White House.
But, I'd rather people voted for alternatives because of her actual policy stances, her neoliberalism, her hawkishness, her love of empire and global capitalism, and not some manufactured "scandal."
But I am always open to new evidence, and if it turns out she really did break the law, well, that's just one more reason not to support her.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
We had to bust Al Capone for Tax Evasion...
At this point, Clinton is strongly resembling a mafia boss.
When they OWN the courts, you take whatever you can get. I'd LIKE to see her go down for her warmongering, war crimes and infliction of pain upon millions of Americans. The best I fear we can hope for is that she stole some rich guys' money at some point.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
I'm sorry
but Spidey sense says your "standards" are way too high for a reason having zero to do with personal integrity. That was one hell of a pious try, though...
Is that comment directed at me?
If so, you better check your "spidey sense." It's on the fritz.
I'm waaay to the left of the Dems, and actually despise both wings of the duopoly. I left, as you guys say, TOP, because I was flagged for comments in support of Sanders, critical of Clinton, and especially because I mentioned I was going to vote for Jill Stein. I was also flagged for saying it was nonsense to claim Nader gave us the Bush presidency. All of this "party first" nonsense really surprised me, but I still had another in store:
I was temporarily banned for the cumulative total of those flags.
Again, you need to check your spidey sense. It's off by light years.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
Well,
that's too bad for you. Given their total lack of reality-based thought when it comes to Hillary Clinton, I'll have to take a pass on assigning any credibility to anyone when outside of it.
Meanwhile, requesting something over and over in one post--something which is impossible to come by in a meaningful time-frame, in terms of "evidence", before you, personally, will believe a situation is meant to plant doubt. And....well, it simply doesn't anymore. What you ask for is unattainable and therefore pointless. It says to me that you don't really want to believe it.
And that's fine, you can believe what you want. But please don't overdo the "They Don't Like Me at TOP, Therefore I Have Cred" motif. Some folks might think you're trying way too hard....
I'm not trying to gain "credibility."
And I mentioned it once. It's strange that you think that's "trying too hard."
But, let's put all our cards on the table. Just come out with it. What, exactly, do you think I'm trying to do here? Do you think I'm actually secretly a supporter of Clinton? If I were, why would I be as critical of her as I am, or try to get people to focus on things that she's done that have actually truly harmed (or killed) others?
I'd sure make for a pretty strange Clinton "surrogate" in that case. "Distracting" people from a non-scandal to actual scandals. If this were the case, then you could rightfully say I was "really bad at my job" -- if my job is to promote Clinton.
You're not thinking this through.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
It doesn't MATTER whether they left it exposed.
It was against the rules and she never received permission to do it.
And whether it was or was not protected, it still skirted FOIA regulations because she did not submit her emails as they occurred into the government record tracking system.
For me, it matters not one bit whether the server was iron-clad. There were rules. She broke them. She is arrogant and assumes rules don't apply to her.
It is a big deal.
Sorry, but I disagree.
Again, it seems like a tempest in a teapot to me. And, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I'm always open to new evidence, but I just can't see how any of this could possibly rise to the level of her economic positions, her hawkishness on war and empire, her love of forcing capitalism down the throats of "developing" nations . . . . etc. etc.
I don't need this, in the slightest, to support someone else. But I'm also a stickler for the truth, and believe in putting things into perspective. On the scale of 1 to 10, if she did "break the rules" here, I give it a 2, in the grand scheme of things. There are truly far more important things (when it comes to public policy and power) than whether or not she broke email protocols.
That's my opinion. You have yours, etc. etc.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
A sideshow.
People getting all hung up on "information" Clinton sent out or received when she's a de facto murderer for her roles in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Relative to the information people are actually upset that Clinton didn't use the proper server or whatever like it really matters. What, our enemies would get hold of it and kill us? Falling into the same old trap.
Very true. It's a sideshow.
There are actual, concrete, observable things she's done to hurt people severely, along with being complicit in killings via wars and drones, etc. etc.. Using a private email server isn't one of them.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
Disagree with facts much?
Then again, you don't appear to know a thing about "servers" and "security". You were "in IT for over 15 years"? I'll take that with the past tense it deserves--I'm guessing you weren't very good at it.
That's my opinion. You have yours, etc. etc.
Pages