Here we go...again...

Posted by MinorLiberator 4 years, 1 month ago to Politics
68 comments | Share | Flag

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)
SOURCE URL: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/10/sources-clinton-to-address-email-controversy-in-next-few-days/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by sdesapio 4 years, 1 month ago
    But then she would have to "carry two devices." Because... you know... it's impossible to have two email addresses on a single device.

    Yep, my head was about to explode right there. The two devices thing just... wow.

    Welcome the the Gulch Minor.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by XenokRoy 4 years, 1 month ago
      I would agree, but I have worked in positions where my team had government contracts that were some level of secret. Everyone had to have clearance and all devices used for work could only have the work email on them. Other email was restricted from the device.

      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
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimslag 4 years, 1 month ago
    In Clinton speak, it is "Nothing to see here, just move on." That is all you get from them, doesn't matter Bill or Hillary, one wears pants, the other pantsuits but the contents of them still think they are better than everybody else.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 1 month ago
    Remember when all it took was 'the ''appearance of inpropriety?" That begs the question though of what the last word means when the group in question has no morals, values, nor standards as understood by humans. Sorry Terrans.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
      Well said. To whatever extent it did exist in Washington DC, the "appearance of impropriety" made a rapid exit in 1993. And I'd wager prior to that, the standard only applied to one of the parties...and I'll give you 3 guesses...etc., etc...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 1 month ago
        That's right back when and perhaps it truly was in 'the day' singular there was more than one party. I guess the right wing of the left. More a swag than a wag.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 1 month ago
    The part she - and the media - are trying to ignore is that she acted in direct contravention of the Open Records law which REQUIRED her in her official capacity to maintain copies of ALL official correspondence.

    She should be tried and convicted and thrown in federal prison. It's as simple as that.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
      Please keep us informed of that end of things, and tell us more. The "general" word going around in the MSM is that there was "no law in place 'at the time'" that she broke. I find that extremely difficult to believe..
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 1 month ago
        Of course, because the MSM is liberally-biased and proud of it. And the reason they can say that she hasn't broken any law is because of the fact that we don't know for a fact that she is witholding anything more than the 30K she turned over. Technically, someone is innocent until proven guilty. The problem with that is that there is no way to prove one way or the other without access to all those other emails she _didn't_ turn over. She's under heavy suspicion, but no proof either to exonerate her or incriminate her. So technically, they are correct, even though everyone admits that she broke the spirit of the law.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 4 years, 1 month ago
    LOL... its simple, she can't do fundraising solicitations on government computer systems - so 'for convenience' she used her own, rather than carry two, or embarrassingly commit multiple felonies under the federal campaign practices laws.

    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:
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
      I'd be interested in your sources as far as her email host, as I've read over the past couple of days two other candidates. Also, I've read that hackers have already created further clintonemail.com addresses, some of them unprintable in polite company, meaning tracing of that domain may no longer yield accurate results.

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by scojohnson 4 years, 1 month ago
        Very true.

        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?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
          Yes, my career was in MS application development, including the years when Microsoft would provide developers with a box of CD's/DVD's every month containing all kinds of software to try out: development, SDK's, servers. I was primarily a developer, but it helped to have some knowledge of Windows servers etc, so I had a small home lab/MS Server network set up for such a purpose. I once set up a basic Microsoft Exchange ("homebrew") server and played around with email domains etc., and it wasn't even connected to the Internet. Even at that rudimentary level.it was not easy or "convenient". And although I didn't need to actually do ongoing support, backups etc., I read enough about it to know it's eons beyond "convenient: to maintain such a system, especially if it was live and active on the Net. Once again, if it turns out that the reality is Hillary did set up such a server at home, the smell-o-meter just went even beyond "11"...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
    I assume it's OK to inject some explicit humor (as opposed to some of the really subtle (ahem) sarcasm that permeates any Clinton-related thread. So, and borrowed from another blogger on a different site, no mine): "At least Bill Clinton's private server was human." Ouch!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 1 month ago
    Welcome M.L.
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
      I disagree slightly: I think a 5yr old would have come up with a better story. Convenience????
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 1 month ago
        I was being general not specific, but "convenience" -- that was a beaut, wasn't it? Even some of her most devoted followers had to be embarrassed by that Q & A session.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
          Oh, no offense to you, of course. I couldn't resist piling on Hillary a little more...

          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)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 4 years, 1 month ago
    "At this point, What difference does it really make"! These are people who would gladly hire John the Executioner and hand him a long list.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 4 years, 1 month ago
    "what difference does it make" the d party will nominate her and the non-thinking public who wanted a black and now want a woman president will prevail and as a result isis will be welcomed with open arms by the washington elite to keep us all in line.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 4 years, 1 month ago
    Well, being above the law is why making laws restricting the rights of mortals doesn't phase these people. They are the elite.

    Conservatives should paint them with this brush to the middle class
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
      I agree...but them I'm an eternal optimist, Benevolent Universe type of guy.

      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...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  rockymountainpirate 4 years, 1 month ago
    Yep, same story different day. obama learned about it on the news, and hilarity clinton is above the law. It's all so predictable that they don't even have to TRY and tell good lies any longer.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
      Agreed. I'm not sure which is the more implausible: that Hillary did this for "convenience", or that Obama "just heard it on the news". That latter implies that either: he never got an email from his own Secretary of State (a little doubtful), or, if he did, he failed to notice that it didn't come from State.gov. I don't consider him an accomplished or brilliant man, but c'mon, he can't be that stupid. Survey sez!: They're both lying.

      (edit for typo)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by sumitch 4 years, 1 month ago
        Given that he can't be bothered with the daily briefings, maybe he can't be bothered with reading his emails. I mean with golf and keeping up with the basketball teams, what more can we expect?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
          The scary part of your comment is that it could well be true, or close enough. If one of the highest standards of morality is to do honest work, and to do it to the best of your ability, then THAT is Obama's most serious moral failing. I can't seem to recall a job that I've had where (sometimes) showing up, sitting at my desk, and being simply "present" would have satisfied my employers.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  richrobinson 4 years, 1 month ago
    If it follows the same pattern of former Clinton scandals she will lay low for a while and then claim she has answered all the questions and that it is old news.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Mamaemma 4 years, 1 month ago
      And that same pattern will work!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  richrobinson 4 years, 1 month ago
        Provided the press remains on their side. I'm shocked that the New York Times seems to be taking the lead on this one and MSNBC hosts have criticized her as well. Could just be that they want to say they vetted her properly but it could be they just don't want her getting the nomination. Should be interesting.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 4 years, 1 month ago
          Seriously, what is their angle, other than they may be in those "missing links"?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  richrobinson 4 years, 1 month ago
            I heard that some are reporting that Valerie Jarrett is responsible for giving this story to the Times. Bill Clinton is definitely a moderate compared to Obama. Supposedly Obama wants to keep Hillary out of the White House. The Clintons and Obamas don't like each other. Two political heavyweights having a public fight. All rumor and supposition but should be fun to watch.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
              I had heard that the White House was the source, and it wouldn't surprise me.

              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.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
        Maybe. As stated in other responses and my own feeling to is that if for whatever reason the D's don't want Hillary in 2016, this would be a great opportunity to throw her under the bus. Not that the Democrats ever throw anyone under the bus...

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 4 years, 1 month ago
    Oh the irony...after they have dismantled the 4th amendment, she wants to keep her email server private.

    Every day I am reminded that America has jumped the shark. Every damn day...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
      At the the risk of being labeled "weightist", "The fat lady hasn't sung yet" (And Hillary never will.) Yes, some privileged Americans are indeed jumping those sharks every day, but think of us as the sharks, and we're starting to jump higher, and chomp harder..."It ain't over..."...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  ObjectiveAnalyst 4 years, 1 month ago
    Greetings MinorLiberator,
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo