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

[ksen]

HRC, on the other hand, actually has a record of reasonable and measured consideration on matters of foreign policy.

Compared to Trump, sure.

But an objective look at her foreign policy shows it's anything but reasonable and measured.

1) Regime change in Libya
2) Syria
3) Supporting Iraq war
4) Threatening Iran with war
5) Honduras
6) Haiti

and probably the most damning:

7) saying Kissinger is one of her mentors

So no, I'm not that impressed with Hillary's foreign policy credentials. More often than not they've lead to more suffering and death.

 

[RavenSky]

HRC, on the other hand, actually has a record of reasonable and measured consideration on matters of foreign policy.

Compared to Trump, sure.

But an objective look at her foreign policy shows it's anything but reasonable and measured.

1) Regime change in Libya
2) Syria
3) Supporting Iraq war
4) Threatening Iran with war
5) Honduras
6) Haiti

and probably the most damning:

7) saying Kissinger is one of her mentors

So no, I'm not that impressed with Hillary's foreign policy credentials. More often than not they've lead to more suffering and death.

I really do not care to be stuck in the position of always defending HRC because she isn't my first choice either. But I see no point in demonizing her either.

I posted this link just today regarding her vote on the Iraq war: Hillary Clinton Told the Truth About Her Iraq War Vote. Her foreign policy judgment can’t be understood without that context.

 

[dismal]

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.

I'm not denying the concept of security through obscurity.

I'm saying a Secretary of State sending 1000s of emails to people on a State Department server doesn't have "obscurity". Anyone looking in the first and most obvious place to look would have discovered clintonemail.com.

If the State Department was not secure, she would not have had "obscurity". If the State Department server was secure, it seems hard to argue she should not have simply used it.

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

I'm not denying the concept of security through obscurity.

I'm saying a Secretary of State sending 1000s of emails to people on a State Department server doesn't have "obscurity".

It does for anyone who does not have access to those emails, which is just about everyone.

Anyone looking in the first and most obvious place to look would have discovered clintonemail.com.

As noted, if the State Department server's were breached, the problem would have been much larger than the hacker(s) finding out about her email server.

If the State Department was not secure, she would not have had "obscurity". If the State Department server was secure, it seems hard to argue she should not have simply used it.

I doubt that she was using it for security reasons. I tend to agree with the poster who said she was likely using to avoid FOIA issues. She was also using a private email server before she was appointed to the Secretary of State, so there is likely inertia involved there, as well as just going along with what her predecessors did. The least likely explanation is that she was doing it for purely evil, horrifying, and unconscionable reasons like providing state secrets to foreign governments, or receiving midget porn.

 

[dismal]

I'm not denying the concept of security through obscurity.

I'm saying a Secretary of State sending 1000s of emails to people on a State Department server doesn't have "obscurity".

It does for anyone who does not have access to those emails, which is just about everyone.

Anyone looking in the first and most obvious place to look would have discovered clintonemail.com.

As noted, if the State Department server's were breached, the problem would have been much larger than the hacker(s) finding out about her email server.

If the State Department was not secure, she would not have had "obscurity". If the State Department server was secure, it seems hard to argue she should not have simply used it.

I doubt that she was using it for security reasons. I tend to agree with the poster who said she was likely using to avoid FOIA issues. She was also using a private email server before she was appointed to the Secretary of State, so there is likely inertia involved there, as well as just going along with what her predecessors did. The least likely explanation is that she was doing it for purely evil, horrifying, and unconscionable reasons like providing state secrets to foreign governments, or receiving midget porn.

goal....posts......shifting.

Here's what Comey said:

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal email domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email 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 email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails 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 email account.

I guess one man's "security by obscurity" is another man( who just happens to be the FBI director)'s "readily apparent".

 

[KeepTalking]

It does for anyone who does not have access to those emails, which is just about everyone.

Anyone looking in the first and most obvious place to look would have discovered clintonemail.com.

As noted, if the State Department server's were breached, the problem would have been much larger than the hacker(s) finding out about her email server.

If the State Department was not secure, she would not have had "obscurity". If the State Department server was secure, it seems hard to argue she should not have simply used it.

I doubt that she was using it for security reasons. I tend to agree with the poster who said she was likely using to avoid FOIA issues. She was also using a private email server before she was appointed to the Secretary of State, so there is likely inertia involved there, as well as just going along with what her predecessors did. The least likely explanation is that she was doing it for purely evil, horrifying, and unconscionable reasons like providing state secrets to foreign governments, or receiving midget porn.

goal....posts......shifting.

WTF are you talking about? What was my original goal post, and how did I shift it?

If you now understand the concept of security through obscurity, then my goal was mostly met. All you need to do is apply that to the email server issue, so long as you refuse to do so, there still seems to be discussion to be had regarding that applicability.

Here's what Comey said:

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal email domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email 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 email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails 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 email account.

I guess one man's "security by obscurity" is another man( who just happens to be the FBI director)'s "readily apparent".

Readily apparent to whom? The answer would be far fewer people than were aware of the State Department server. That means that her server was more obscure than theirs, and could have gained some security benefit from that obscurity. The concept is not that hard to grasp, so I am not sure why you are having trouble with it.

 

[dismal]

Readily apparent to whom? The answer would be far fewer people than were aware of the State Department server. That means that her server was more obscure than theirs, and could have gained some security benefit from that obscurity. The concept is not that hard to grasp, so I am not sure why you are having trouble with it.

OK, last try:

You are arguing that her email address, which was plastered all over the state department server because she sent 1000s of emails over the state department server, was more obscure than if it have been on the state department server.

Absurd.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2...-shutdown-government-because-hillary-clinton/

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) once claimed that he “never voted for a [government] shutdown and never will.” But Issa is so angry the FBI recommended Hillary Clinton not be indicted for using a private server for her email that he suggested on Wednesday that he is rethinking his promise. He proposed that now might be a good time for the Republican leadership to shut down the federal government, in protest of what he called “an imperial president” who will not “enforce criminal charges against a criminal.”

In an interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily, Issa blasted FBI Director James Comey’s decision as “simply choosing to ignore a law.”
“We should be willing to shut down the government if the president won’t limit his power,” he said, noting that his party had repeatedly been “willing to shut down the government over ending Obamacare and these other things.” Those things, according to Issa, are “small points compared to the actual balance of our republic.”


----
Warning! Meltdown imminent!
Warning! Meltdown imminent!

 

[Tristan Scott]

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.

Based on what evidence?

 

[ksen]

Compared to Trump, sure.

But an objective look at her foreign policy shows it's anything but reasonable and measured.

1) Regime change in Libya
2) Syria
3) Supporting Iraq war
4) Threatening Iran with war
5) Honduras
6) Haiti

and probably the most damning:

7) saying Kissinger is one of her mentors

So no, I'm not that impressed with Hillary's foreign policy credentials. More often than not they've lead to more suffering and death.

I really do not care to be stuck in the position of always defending HRC because she isn't my first choice either. But I see no point in demonizing her either.

I posted this link just today regarding her vote on the Iraq war: Hillary Clinton Told the Truth About Her Iraq War Vote. Her foreign policy judgment can’t be understood without that context.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

 

[RavenSky]

And some other dickhead Republican, who was interviewed on video just a week or so ago stating he had full confidence in FBI Director Comey (probably because he was a Bush appointee) is now insisting that Comey must answer to Congress for his recommendation

 

[Colonel Sanders]

And some other dickhead Republican, who was interviewed on video just a week or so ago stating he had full confidence in FBI Director Comey (probably because he was a Bush appointee) is now insisting that Comey must answer to Congress for his recommendation

Can you imagine how clean the GOP would be if they investigated their own with such zeal?

Whatever. So Hillary can look forward to this carrying on until the day she dies. Then they'll probably recover an email sent to Chelsea Clinton from an offending server and then they can investigate that until 2070.

I wonder what kind of faux-revolutionary melodrama is going to shat out by conservatives over this.

The bottom legal line here is that this thing is dead. Over. Lost. Gone. Finished. Res motherfuckin' Judicata (so to speak). Lots of people are saying that if this was anyone else blahblahblah. Well, this is what you get when you launch a bum investigation into something that was never anything to begin with and in the process get the mouth breathers all fired up for a lynching that's never going to happen. But blame the mouth breathers too. They're the ones who can't seem to figure out why, after 25 years of accusations, all they've netted is one fat goose-egg after the next when it comes to Hillary. Nada. And now they've got nada again and they're mad again.

Or maybe Hillary is an evil genius of heretofore unseen craftiness. If so, the likes of Putin must be shaking in their dictatorial boots. It's the same thing with Obama. He's an idiot, but he's also a secret Muslim terrorist who's taking our guns as part of his plan to make America a new Islamic caliphate. And so it goes again with Hillary. She's incompetent and stupid, but able to outsmart God's folks because... Or maybe God's folks are just fucking retards.

 

[Tristan Scott]

As to your number 5: Comey said: "In looking back at our investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.”

And then he said if similar situations occured there would be sanctions. But Hillary gets no sanctions. In fact when she becomes President she'll again be given access to highly classified material that she's demonstrated she's not able to handle properly.

Comey's statement isn't a win for Team Hillary other than the fact there'll be no trial or potential jail time.

Sanctions are not the same as criminal charges. She isn't getting any sanctions because she is no longer employed by state. As far as when she becomes president, she has already said that if she had it to do over again she would not use a personal server, she's been saying that all along-if thats not good enough for you, then don't support her. Oh, but of course you weren't going to support her anyway. As far as jail time goes, I defy you to show any case where someone has gotten jail time for something similar. I know that must be very disturbing to you, but as Comey said the main reason there will be no prosecution is because she was forthright and cooperated.

We tend to forget that the Bush administration "lost" over 5 million emails requested by congress in 2007 during the investigation into the firing of 8 US attorneys for suspected political reasons. And as far as security breaches go this is nothing compared to the case of Valerie Plame and Cheney. But that's ok, you all just go ahead and keep your eye on these little sideshows and leave the real issues up to the grown-ups. To most Americans it is and has been a non-issue as it will be in November. At least to all except those who weren't going to vote for Clinton anyway.

 

[RavenSky]

aaannnnddddd Paul Ryan pipes up, too

He also called for the director of National Intelligence to "block" Clinton from accessing classified information as a presidential candidate, given her handling of government secrets on her private email server.

"I don't think she should get classified information," Ryan said.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/286608-ryan-gop-will-hold-hearings-on-clinton-probe

Paul Ryan has no problem giving security briefing to the fucking diarrhea-mouthed Cheeto who congratulated Scotland for "taking their country back" after the Brexit vote,

but he is worried about HRC

Gimme a fucking break.

 

[ksen]

As far as jail time goes, I defy you to show any case where someone has gotten jail time for something similar.

CIA Director John Deutsch

Bryan H. Nishimura

yw

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Anyone looking in the first and most obvious place to look would have discovered clintonemail.com.

I'm not dumb enough to come up with that website.

 

[KeepTalking]

Readily apparent to whom? The answer would be far fewer people than were aware of the State Department server. That means that her server was more obscure than theirs, and could have gained some security benefit from that obscurity. The concept is not that hard to grasp, so I am not sure why you are having trouble with it.

OK, last try:

Thank the FSM, I'm getting tired of explaining what should be bleedingly obvious.

You are arguing that her email address, which was plastered all over the state department server because she sent 1000s of emails over the state department server, was more obscure than if it have been on the state department server.

Absurd.

The State Department email servers will have millions upon millions of emails archived there. Only a few thousand will contain her email address. The State Department server is a huge target for hackers, not just because Hillary used it, but because the entire State Department uses it. Not everyone attempting to hack that server is looking for things related to Hillary Clinton. This entire thing blew up after Hillary left office, so while she was in office, how many people outside of the State Department do you think actually knew she had a private email server, and that she conducted official business on it?

Her server was obviously more obscure than the State Department server. I am not sure how this is even in dispute.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone looking in the first and most obvious place to look would have discovered clintonemail.com.

I'm not dumb enough to come up with that website.

Well it is rather descriptive, so it has that going for it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've read that the pertinent law being looked at was 18 USC 793(f) which reads:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

I don't see anything about intent in that law. But then legal words seem to sometimes not mean what normal english readers may assume so any lawyers around that can interpret this for us and let us know if you think Comey was right for basing his non-recommendation for criminal indictment on Clinton's lack of intent?

And I don't see gross negligence in her actions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

What she was actually doing is trying to get things done despite the crappy system provided for the task.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

If she was in their country and accessed it without using a VPN they would know (assuming they were spying on her connection--something that would be expected in a hostile country) there was something there and a simple check would show it to be an e-mail server. This is why such stuff should be left to the professionals--but the professionals wouldn't do their job of providing a reasonable system so she made do.