Here we go...again...
Posted by MinorLiberator 9 years, 1 month ago to Politics
Greetings, fellow strikers. I am new to The Gulch. At least this one. I was fortunate to discover the fictional one in 1969. This is my first post, but not my last.
One of the very first posts I read as a new member was on this topic. While it was an informative post from a technical standpoint, I don't think the minutia of IP addresses etc. are really relevant to the issue, and are in fact a (perhaps intentional) distraction.
I believe this article is more to the important points, even more so in that it shows the beginnings of what I felt to be the almost certain classic Clintonian response. I claim no special savant status there, as Clinton damage control responses are as predictable as a bad sitcom.
To be more specific, I believe there is enough evidence, hard, real evidence based on past Clinton scandals to suggest that Hillary knew precisely what she was doing when she set up a private email server, and it had nothing to do with "convenience", and everything to do with knowingly maintaining the secrecy of her correspondence. Note that my use of the term secrecy vs. private is conscious and intentional
Call me a romantic, but I prefer to see things as they can be and should be, not simply the way they are.
What Hillary SHOULD have done is what every other honest employee of an organization, be it government or private, does: for work emails, use the system provided by your employer.
What Hillary did do would be unacceptable for mere mortals, and reeks of someone, again, wanting to keep secrets. Does anyone, except some really naive and trusting people, believe that those 55,000 emails she wants released represent all of the emails the public has a right to see? I really don't think so.
There will be more on this story and other things to post I'm sure. But I think the telling fact in this article is the beginning of the line that the server contains both official and private emails, and golly gee whiz, I'll be the one to decide what's released, and "this server will remain private". It is that last point that we must keep, and have a right to keep, from happening.
(edited for actypo)
One of the very first posts I read as a new member was on this topic. While it was an informative post from a technical standpoint, I don't think the minutia of IP addresses etc. are really relevant to the issue, and are in fact a (perhaps intentional) distraction.
I believe this article is more to the important points, even more so in that it shows the beginnings of what I felt to be the almost certain classic Clintonian response. I claim no special savant status there, as Clinton damage control responses are as predictable as a bad sitcom.
To be more specific, I believe there is enough evidence, hard, real evidence based on past Clinton scandals to suggest that Hillary knew precisely what she was doing when she set up a private email server, and it had nothing to do with "convenience", and everything to do with knowingly maintaining the secrecy of her correspondence. Note that my use of the term secrecy vs. private is conscious and intentional
Call me a romantic, but I prefer to see things as they can be and should be, not simply the way they are.
What Hillary SHOULD have done is what every other honest employee of an organization, be it government or private, does: for work emails, use the system provided by your employer.
What Hillary did do would be unacceptable for mere mortals, and reeks of someone, again, wanting to keep secrets. Does anyone, except some really naive and trusting people, believe that those 55,000 emails she wants released represent all of the emails the public has a right to see? I really don't think so.
There will be more on this story and other things to post I'm sure. But I think the telling fact in this article is the beginning of the line that the server contains both official and private emails, and golly gee whiz, I'll be the one to decide what's released, and "this server will remain private". It is that last point that we must keep, and have a right to keep, from happening.
(edited for actypo)
If it was the Dem's turn the media would not be covering this at all.
This is nothing but circuses to distract the sheep from the tightening circle of the wolves.
Yep, my head was about to explode right there. The two devices thing just... wow.
Welcome the the Gulch Minor.
ML
Why? Because it was a security to risk that someone might use a personal email for something that should require clearance. If someone were to do so it was grounds for termination and could cost the company the government contract. The double standard is just business as usual for congress persons today
(Psst, those were the pigs).
She should be tried and convicted and thrown in federal prison. It's as simple as that.
She says that it was "an email system acquired for the former president". Yeah, right, all he does in an official capacity is attend funerals and weddings. The DNS MX record for the domain points to 1and1.com mail servers... it's "private" but its a private Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) small business type offering from 1and1.com - probably with a small biz hosting web site. deal. Not much more than GoDaddy for $10 a month. That's why she's being vague and cryptic.
Can she trust EVERYONE at 1and1 to not access something as juicy as emails sent/received by a sitting US Secretary of State? It's absurd. She should be facing charges.
It's also entirely likely that she was using a non-secure email client platform, like POP3 or IMAP... also greatly risking cyber security. It's a certainty that multiple other state-sponsored intelligence agencies had deeply-penetrated her email account. Since she was probably copied on a boatload of emails not even specifically to her, they would have been seeing pretty much everything going on at the State Department.
If this was anyone else, there would be handcuffs involved, that is for certain.
Scotts-MacBook-Air:~ Scott$ nslookup
> set q=any
> clintonmail.com
Server: 8.8.8.8
Address: 8.8.8.8#53
Non-authoritative answer:
clintonmail.com mail exchanger = 10 mx00.1and1.com.
clintonmail.com has AAAA address 2607:f1c0:1000:603a:28e2:dbd8:eb1d:d002
clintonmail.com
origin = ns51.1and1.com
mail addr = hostmaster.1and1.com
serial = 2012101901
refresh = 28800
retry = 7200
expire = 604800
minimum = 1800
clintonmail.com nameserver = ns51.1and1.com.
clintonmail.com nameserver = ns52.1and1.com.
clintonmail.com mail exchanger = 10 mx01.1and1.com.
Name: clintonmail.com
Address: 198.71.53.150
Authoritative answers can be found from:
As I said in my original post, it matters not a whit where she hosted the account as far as her culpability and questions of ethics go. It certainly DOES matter as far as security implications, as you point out.
Ironically, I think the possibly most secure alternative, a private, physical server in her home (protected at least by the Secret Service) is also the most suspicious, as that would be the most, shall we say, "inconvenient" way to do it, but they would at least be in total control of the machine. And if so, perhaps she means, literally, "that server will remain private" (in my greedy little hands). In that case, even more reason to get that machine.
To use a 3rd party service, certainly possible and another and more "convenient" method, leaves open the wonderful possibility of backups existing somewhere, and a possible whistleblower...oh, I wish.
Considering that relatively small amounts of IT support work are actually done by federal civil servants as opposed to their contractor counterparts, and the nature of the oddness of going to the Clinton's house to perform the work, it really does seem unlikely to me that any government employees were involved. I suspect that it was either an outsourced low-buck service that doesn't have anything necessarily available in the way of archiving (or she is scared to mention who it is), or was completely maintained by some private consultant in New York, also equally concerning (were they security-cleared, background checks, checks updated over this period of years, etc.) Or maybe as she likes to take advantage of in the way of free private jet flights, etc., maybe a 'good samaritan' volunteered to provide the on-site services expenses for her as a loyal patriotic gesture.
Back in the day... the Clintons & Gore had a lot of problems with foreign-nationals illegally contributing to their campaign... there could easily be some campaign donations in there that might be very troubling, for a sitting Secretary of State... maybe some trade deals were kicked back?
Hillary is a combo of the worst aspects of her husband Bill, and Barack -- without their charm. Add to that her almost mind-fogging incompetence and what you have someone unable to lead, lazy, with wrong and incomplete premises. If that's not enough, when she is caught in her inability to lead or one of her outrageously bad decisions, she lies like a five year old who had just been found with her hand in the Halloween candy.
And yes, "convenience" does take the cake. Sorry, Hillary, but perhaps in 1991 Bush Sr. had never seen a supermarket scanner (you guys certainly made hay of THAT), but there's a whole bunch of us "folks" who can handle multiple email accounts on their mobile phones, much less their computers. And someone very close to me can actually handle (and fit in her purse) her own personal iPhone for her own stuff, and a Blackberry that's the standard where she works. Golleee, Andy! Would ya believe it?
(edit for some typos)
I look forward to seeing more.
NMA
Conservatives should paint them with this brush to the middle class
I know I will get flak from those who think she's untouchable, but IMCO there are enough swing voters who can handle work and personal emails accounts (and would be in danger of losing their jobs should they mix the two), and even handle multiple devices (my 15-yr can handle multiple devices easily, and at times, two at once: one in each hand). And they just aren't going to buy it this time. IF it can be kept before them, and articulated by someone other than say, a Bush...
This is why I am all ready tired of this subject.
(edit for typo)
I think something is going on here even beyond the email issue. I still find it unusual that the NYT broke the story. Also, and it may just be wishful thinking, but it seems to me that the MSM is not quite in full cover-up mode, at least not yet.
Obviously Fox, the conservative and libertarian blogs etc. will keep on this, but I'll be interested if the mainstream press keeps digging, or goes into "ho-hum" mode soon.
And lest we forget, she was as equally anointed in 2008, until...
Time will tell...if the MSM lets this die down in the usual manner for a Clinton, then she'll survive. If they keep pursuing it, she's in trouble.
Every day I am reminded that America has jumped the shark. Every damn day...
Yes. Round and round we go. I want off this merry go round. The spin is giving me vertigo. This is of course their intent. Keep us off balance and fatigued from constant scandal and we will be easily moved along at the next news cycle, or so they hope.
Their deceptions are designed to mold us.
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is Strength."
Good first post. You have initiated quite a lot of good comments too.
Respectfully,
O.A.