FBI recommends no charges against Mrs Clinton: let the accusations begin. Will this help or hurt HRC?

[Playball40]

Ok, I just need to ask the question on my mind. All I hear about is how HRC is a 'career politician whose aspirations have no end'. That she has had her eye on the WH since before her husband was president. I have not doubt she is a very ambitious woman.

So WHY, in ANY universe, would she KNOWINGLY open herself up to this? I continue to hear how she KNEW she was mishandling classified info...etc etc. But why would someone do this knowing they will be running for president. It seems more likely than not that she genuinely didn't know as opposed to didn't care. What benefit was it to her to do things the way she did and did that benefit outweigh her political ambitions? If not, then I really can't believe her actions were all intentional and sinister.

As Secretary of State it was her job to know.

Except that doesn't answer my question.

 

[repoman]

What she ACTUALLY was doing was avoiding scrutiny and accountability to FOIA.

 

[RavenSky]

For me, it has nothing to do with Trump.

I may have used a bit too broad of a brush there.

Comey's statements were very damning towards Clinton's behavior. The only shining light about his statement was that he wouldn't be recommending prosecution to the Justice Department. Everything else was a full on scathing rebuke.

I agree with all of the above. It is a shining light because we don't need any more chaos in this election cycle. HRC may not be our favorite choice, but blowing up the Democratic party while the Republican party is in full melt-down would not be good at all.

HRC is not my first choice for Democratic candidate either. I also think we could have done much better - as Democratic candidate and likely first female president.

But this email thing isn't the reason why, and I simply do not think this email thing matters. I do not think it reflects on HRC's trust-worthiness or competency at all.

Comey said she was extremely careless and that a person in her position should have known her personal email server was not the place to have the discussions she was having. In my opinion that directly addresses her competency, or lack thereof.

Meh. Hindsight is 20/20. Even she has said that if she could go back and do it differently, she would

The server was secure. The FBI confirms there were no signs anyone hacked into it.

No, it wasn't secure. Comey did confirm that they didn't find evidence of hacking but then followed right up by saying that given the potential hackers and nature of her system he didn't think they'd be able to find direct evidence even if it had happened.

And the same can be said about every system, including the State Departments

If there was no evidence of a breach, we can't claim there was a breach and call HRC "careless" because of a breach there is no evidence of.

HRC did not give classified information to anyone lacking proper security clearance.

I don't think that was part of the investigation. Comey said they were looking to see if classified information was stored or transmitted on her personal server.

That was the only part of the investigation that actually mattered

The federal government protocol for email was (and still is) evolving - usually in response to breaches rather than in anticipation of them.

She sent/received work-related email on her private/personal email account. So did Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powell.

Firstly I don't find the argument that other people did it too particularly convincing and secondly Rice and Powell aren't currently running for president with all the attendant access to even more classified information that position entails.

First, you are assuming I think Condi and Colin did anything wrong. I don't. I think they, and HRC, handled an evolving technology as they saw fit, and nothing bad happened. I don't think any of it is a reflection on the people themselves.

And I think that the Republicans have - true to their usual hypocritical ways - have create a tempest in a teacup, but only as to the Democrat... not to the two Republicans preceding her.

And I sure as heck do not for a single second believe that HRC is going to be setting up private email servers in the White House. Even if we want to believe that she didn't learn from this, the security protocol has evolved further since she was last in a government position.

I don't think her judgement is always great. She did vote for the Iraq invasion, for instance*. But I don't think her judgement is worse than (for instance) Bush II, Nixon, Reagan, or her own husband's. And it is a million miles better than Trump's

* though even that has layers of nuance that aren't often examined

 

[KeepTalking]

It wasn't obscure, at all. Have you read Comey's statement? Because a lot of the objections and excuses for her I'm seeing here have been directly addressed in Comey's statement.

We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

"A large number of people" is certainly a relative statement, but if a "large" number of people knew about Hillary's server, then a "metric shit ton" of people know about the State Department servers. Any way you slice it, her server was more obscure than the official server. The more obscure a system/server is, the less likely a random hacker is going to try to hack it. It's like back when Apple computers had such a small user base that there were virtually no viruses targeting Apple computers, so they were more secure than PCs because of that obscurity. Now Apple computers are much more ubiquitous, so they no longer benefit as much from security through obscurity.

 

[dismal]

It wasn't obscure, at all. Have you read Comey's statement? Because a lot of the objections and excuses for her I'm seeing here have been directly addressed in Comey's statement.

"A large number of people" is certainly a relative statement, but if a "large" number of people knew about Hillary's server, then a "metric shit ton" of people know about the State Department servers. Any way you slice it, her server was more obscure than the official server. The more obscure a system/server is, the less likely a random hacker is going to try to hack it. It's like back when Apple computers had such a small user base that there were virtually no viruses targeting Apple computers, so they were more secure than PCs because of that obscurity. Now Apple computers are much more ubiquitous, so they no longer benefit as much from security through obscurity.

erm, I guess you missed the part where legendary hacker Guccifer hacked Sidney Blumenthal's emails that included emails to Hillary on this server (that she also did not provide to the government).

 

[ksen]

It wasn't obscure, at all. Have you read Comey's statement? Because a lot of the objections and excuses for her I'm seeing here have been directly addressed in Comey's statement.

"A large number of people" is certainly a relative statement, but if a "large" number of people knew about Hillary's server, then a "metric shit ton" of people know about the State Department servers. Any way you slice it, her server was more obscure than the official server. The more obscure a system/server is, the less likely a random hacker is going to try to hack it. It's like back when Apple computers had such a small user base that there were virtually no viruses targeting Apple computers, so they were more secure than PCs because of that obscurity. Now Apple computers are much more ubiquitous, so they no longer benefit as much from security through obscurity.

Comey isn't talking about "random hackers." He mentions "sophisticated adversaries", i.e. foreign states, that would have a vested interest in getting into Clinton's email server.

 

[dismal]

[YOUTUBE]wbkS26PX4rc[/YOUTUBE]

 

[fromderinside]

Comey isn't talking about "random hackers." He mentions "sophisticated adversaries", i.e. foreign states, that would have a vested interest in getting into Clinton's email server.

Why are we playing around in 'woulda land' in the mind of Comey? Is there so little evidence of careless compared to Department of State practices that we need go there?

As for 'guilty of lying' I notice Comey doesn't say that. He says documents were classified that she either received or sent. FBI had no evidence she knew they were classified when she her mails held them. If they had they would have recommended otherwise.

Its all a neat little presentation designed to tar SD and HC for being unlike the pristine, busted labs, FBI on matters of letter of law security. It is well known, for instance, that SD, NSA, and CIA use drones covertly in many places in the ME and E Asia. The fact that some emails implied dates and times of particular drone strikes would be classified is evident and trivial vis a vis security. Is this even lax? I think not.

If you want to make your case that she should be tarred in this way please make it more concrete.

 

[ksen]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

 

[Will Wiley]

Other countries politicians and security agencies are corrupt, but American ones aren't.

if the American people saw something corrupt they would rise up and...er...vote for Trump

Why would we vote for the most corrupt person of all?

The point is you don't have any choice ATM it's one or the other. But as a matter of interest what is the evidence that Trump is corrupt?

He is a dick, sure, but corrupt?

Oh right, you are just one Putin fan-boy supporting another.

I'm not a fan of Trump , but as a non American I'd prefer him to Clinton because we know based on evidence that Clinton will be a disaster as far as foreign policy goes. Trump seems far better. Clinton is far more likely to start WW3.

 

[Will Wiley]

As for 'guilty of lying' I notice Comey doesn't say that. He says documents were classified that she either received or sent. FBI had no evidence she knew they were classified

Because Hillary is a moron. Is that what we are looking at?

Mind you sometimes she knew how to tell what sort of material she had sent

Bombshell: In Email, Hillary Ordered Aide to Strip Classified Marking and Send Sensitive Material

The latest batch of emails released from Hillary Clinton's personal account from her tenure as secretary of state includes 66 messages deemed classified at some level, the State Department said early Friday. In one email, Clinton even seemed to coach a top adviser on how to send secure information outside secure channels. Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has repeatedly maintained that she did not send or receive classified material on her personal account. The State Department claims none of the emails now marked classified were labled as such at the time they were sent. However, one email thread from June 2011 appears to include Clinton telling her top adviser Jake Sullivan to send secure information through insecure means. In response to Clinton's request for a set of since-redacted talking points, Sullivan writes, "They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it." Clinton responds "If they can't, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure." Ironically, an email thread from four months earlier shows Clinton saying she was "surprised" that a diplomatic oficer named John Godfrey used a personal email account to send a memo on Libya policy after the fall of Muammar Qaddafi.

 

[fromderinside]

Will Wiley posts another hot 'news' bit'Ocrap from RW TownHall stitching from emails suggestions from Hillary not in the emails. Really?

 

[KeepTalking]

"A large number of people" is certainly a relative statement, but if a "large" number of people knew about Hillary's server, then a "metric shit ton" of people know about the State Department servers. Any way you slice it, her server was more obscure than the official server. The more obscure a system/server is, the less likely a random hacker is going to try to hack it. It's like back when Apple computers had such a small user base that there were virtually no viruses targeting Apple computers, so they were more secure than PCs because of that obscurity. Now Apple computers are much more ubiquitous, so they no longer benefit as much from security through obscurity.

erm, I guess you missed the part where legendary hacker Guccifer hacked Sidney Blumenthal's emails that included emails to Hillary on this server (that she also did not provide to the government).

Which is not evidence that he hacked her server, or eve tried to hack her server. Security through obscurity still applies, as one hacker knowing about it does not mean that a million hackers knew about it. The less obscure the server became over the years, the less security it would have due to that obscurity, but it would still be much more obscure than the State Department servers.

 

[KeepTalking]

"A large number of people" is certainly a relative statement, but if a "large" number of people knew about Hillary's server, then a "metric shit ton" of people know about the State Department servers. Any way you slice it, her server was more obscure than the official server. The more obscure a system/server is, the less likely a random hacker is going to try to hack it. It's like back when Apple computers had such a small user base that there were virtually no viruses targeting Apple computers, so they were more secure than PCs because of that obscurity. Now Apple computers are much more ubiquitous, so they no longer benefit as much from security through obscurity.

Comey isn't talking about "random hackers." He mentions "sophisticated adversaries", i.e. foreign states, that would have a vested interest in getting into Clinton's email server.

If they knew about it.

That is where security through obscurity comes into play. Every foreign state knew that the State Department server existed, but how many knew about Hillary's email server? The server was entirely secure against those who did not know it existed. That is what the concept of security through obscurity is all about. Do you understand this concept? If so, great, apply it to this situation, and you will see that from this perspective, her email server could be seen as more secure than the State Department's. That's all I was trying to get across, and it doesn't even mean that it was necessarily more secure, just that it is possible that it was because of that obscurity.

 

[RavenSky]

Why would we vote for the most corrupt person of all?

The point is you don't have any choice ATM it's one or the other. But as a matter of interest what is the evidence that Trump is corrupt?

He is a dick, sure, but corrupt?

corrupt.

Look at his business dealings. That man is by far the most corrupt person we have ever had this close to our presidency.

Oh right, you are just one Putin fan-boy supporting another.

I'm not a fan of Trump , but as a non American I'd prefer him to Clinton because we know based on evidence that Clinton will be a disaster as far as foreign policy goes. Trump seems far better. Clinton is far more likely to start WW3.

That anyone would see Trump as a lesser threat to WWIII is just daft. With his belligerence and temper and utter lack of foreign policy knowledge and utter lack of desire to learn about it, he - more than Bush 2 or anyone else in our history - is the most likely to get us into more wars.

HRC, on the other hand, actually has a record of reasonable and measured consideration on matters of foreign policy. I may not always agree with her decisions (such as her trusting Bush 2 not to take us straight into Iraq), but she will be far less likely to get us into further war than any other candidate that ran for the office this time around.

Of course, it does no good to say any of this to you because these aren't your real reasons for being a Trump trumpet anyway

 

[Will Wiley]

The point is you don't have any choice ATM it's one or the other. But as a matter of interest what is the evidence that Trump is corrupt?

He is a dick, sure, but corrupt?

corrupt.

Look at his business dealings. That man is by far the most corrupt person we have ever had this close to our presidency.

I asked for evidence. This isn't a religious forum, it's one for rational thinkers.
What is the evidence?

 

[dismal]

erm, I guess you missed the part where legendary hacker Guccifer hacked Sidney Blumenthal's emails that included emails to Hillary on this server (that she also did not provide to the government).

Which is not evidence that he hacked her server, or eve tried to hack her server. Security through obscurity still applies, as one hacker knowing about it does not mean that a million hackers knew about it. The less obscure the server became over the years, the less security it would have due to that obscurity, but it would still be much more obscure than the State Department servers.

Anyone with access to those State Department servers you think are so obvious and insecure would also know about her private email address since she was sending 1000s of emails across them from her private server.

So, there's that.

 

[RavenSky]

corrupt.

Look at his business dealings. That man is by far the most corrupt person we have ever had this close to our presidency.

I asked for evidence. This isn't a religious forum, it's one for rational thinkers.
What is the evidence?

As I said, look at his business dealings.

As for providing evidence... after you

But frankly, it is truly funny that you want to talk about "rational thinkers" after saying that you prefer Trump as US President

 

[KeepTalking]

Which is not evidence that he hacked her server, or eve tried to hack her server. Security through obscurity still applies, as one hacker knowing about it does not mean that a million hackers knew about it. The less obscure the server became over the years, the less security it would have due to that obscurity, but it would still be much more obscure than the State Department servers.

Anyone with access to those State Department servers you think are so obvious and insecure would also know about her private email address since she was sending 1000s of emails across them from her private server.

So, there's that.

I never said they were obvious and insecure, just that they are not obscure, so they won't gain any security that way. If you want to be ignorant about it, and deny the concept of security through obscurity, that's no skin off my back.

Hopefully, the State Department servers are secure enough that they do not need to be obscure, but no email server is perfectly secure. If the State Department servers were breached, there is probably a lot more to worry about than someone having found out about Hillary's server through them.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/ryan-says-congress-examining-possible-action-on-clintons-email-use/

U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan on Wednesday said lawmakers are examining whether there is any action they can take over Hillary Clinton’s email practices while secretary of state, saying it appeared she had received preferential treatment from the FBI.
Ryan, a Republican, said the House of Representatives would not “foreclose any options” when asked whether a special prosecutor was necessary to get to the bottom of the Democratic presidential candidate’s use of a private email server while she ran the State Department.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation said on Tuesday it would not recommend charges regarding Clinton’s email. This decision, Ryan said, “looks like” preferential treatment for Clinton. He said the announcement by FBI Director James Comey “raises more questions than provides answers.”


---

A witch! A witch! We've found a witch! Can we burn her!?
Yes, the GOP will be investigating this forever and forever.