Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Politics & Elections (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=34)
-   -   I have changed my mind about the Clinton email scandal (and so should you) (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=788657)

Richard Parker 04-01-2016 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear (Post 19225556)
Until I see a mug shot and hear about charges being filed, it's safe to assume that nothing will come from anything.

I'll just wait over here for that to happen. Any day now.

An action can be an example of terrible judgment without being a crime. In this case, we will likely never know if her Blackberry was hacked or if sensitive documents were retrieved from her server. At most we might learn what sensitive documents were on the server, but probably not until they are declassified in a couple of decades.

It should be enough to know that she was specifically and individually advised that this was a gaping security flaw, she agreed that it was, but she continued to use her unsecured Blackberry to communicate using her badly secured server.

The only real counterargument available is to claim that the Secretary of State of the United States both doesn't have any sensitive conversations outside secured areas, and never receives or sends sensitive information over email. While I concede that those are metaphysical possibilities, I think it requires a certain kind of special partisan faith to believe them.

Left Hand of Dorkness 04-01-2016 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19226466)
The only real counterargument available is to claim that the Secretary of State of the United States both doesn't have any sensitive conversations outside secured areas, and never receives or sends sensitive information over email. While I concede that those are metaphysical possibilities, I think it requires a certain kind of special partisan faith to believe them.

What about this counterargument:
-Her communication via a private server does create a nontrivial security risk. However,
-Government communication protocols are (or were at the time) so cumbersome that rigid adherence to them would materially and adversely affect her ability to perform her job, and those adverse affects would also create a nontrivial security risk to our country.
-A secretary of state able to function in the most efficient manner available increases our nation's security to a degree sufficient to outweigh concerns about leaky email systems.

I'm not sure I buy this argument, but I suspect it's the one Clinton consciously or unconsciously relied on.

John_Stamos'_Left_Ear 04-01-2016 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19226466)
An action can be an example of terrible judgment without being a crime.

Don't care.

Richard Parker 04-02-2016 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 19227521)
What about this counterargument:
-Her communication via a private server does create a nontrivial security risk. However,
-Government communication protocols are (or were at the time) so cumbersome that rigid adherence to them would materially and adversely affect her ability to perform her job, and those adverse affects would also create a nontrivial security risk to our country.
-A secretary of state able to function in the most efficient manner available increases our nation's security to a degree sufficient to outweigh concerns about leaky email systems.

I'm not sure I buy this argument, but I suspect it's the one Clinton consciously or unconsciously relied on.

I think it's a better argument.

But the only people capable of intelligently evaluating the magnitude of the security risk posed by her IT practices had told her it was a big deal. She did not have the technological knowledge to evaluate that risk for herself. So any balancing of the risks she did was a blindfolded one, and therefore still quite reckless.

And I think it's important to keep in mind that we aren't just talking about leaky email. Equally important, in my view, is that she was warned that her unsecured Blackberry posed the risk of remote monitoring of her in-person conversations.

One upshot of this should be, even for the people who claim they "don't care," that we find the money to get the Secretary of State a secure mobile communication system. I would be very curious to know if people like Leon Panetta and Michael Hayden carry unsecured phones.

Fear Itself 04-02-2016 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19228847)
She did not have the technological knowledge to evaluate that risk for herself. So any balancing of the risks she did was a blindfolded one, and therefore still quite reckless.

Are you suggesting she personally set up her email server? She has already confirmed an IT professional did the setup. How do know that person was not completely equipped to install sufficient security measures?

Richard Parker 04-02-2016 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fear Itself (Post 19228856)
She has already confirmed an IT professional did the setup. How do know that person was not completely equipped to install sufficient security measures?

Because we know what security he put in place, and it was shitty. A smart teenager would have done a better job.

And, again, that's only part of the issue, the other part being the monitoring of communications at the device-level.

Johnny Ace 04-02-2016 10:46 AM

It's REALLY hard for me to take this seriously. I've worked in IT for half my life, and even in this day and age I run into a large number of people who just have no clue when it comes to digital security. Regular, intelligent people who can't seem to follow the simplest of rules, and you can talk to them until you're blue in the face. ESPECIALLY executives. That doesn't make them criminal, regardless of the Republicans and other anti-Clintonites who want to make this into the next great conspiracy.

Richard Parker 04-02-2016 10:49 AM

And so I'll just observe one last time that (1) I am voting for Clinton; and (2) I do not believe she committed a crime.

It beggars belief that people think this is irrelevant unless it somehow damages Clinton politically or puts her in jail.

Sherrerd 04-02-2016 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19226466)
An action can be an example of terrible judgment without being a crime. ... It should be enough to know that she was specifically and individually advised that this was a gaping security flaw, she agreed that it was, but she continued to use her unsecured Blackberry to communicate using her badly secured server.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19228847)
But the only people capable of intelligently evaluating the magnitude of the security risk posed by her IT practices had told her it was a big deal.

You continue to speak of the Warning as if it had been the Burning Bush speaking to Moses. (And Moses ignoring the BB.)

But as several posting here have intimated, when you work for the government, you have people coming in all the time and telling you that you HAVE to do such-and-such. Some of these exhortations are contradictory. You have no real way of knowing who is a Burning Bush and who is just a self-important, officious bureaucrat.

It's worth recalling, too, that in 2009 we did not possess all the knowledge that the intervening years have brought us, here in 2016.

Today we are hyper-aware of the power and reach of hacking. But the list of major hacking scandals that directly affected millions of consumers was notably shorter in 2009, and hacking was not established as so pervasive a part of normal life. The Target breach--perhaps the most widely-publicized at that time--didn't make the news until late 2013. It was followed later by Adobe, Sony, Staples, Home Depot, Ashley Madison etc. Before 2009 hacking was in the news, but not in the 'not another one' way we've come to consider "normal" in 2016.








Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19226466)
One upshot of this should be, even for the people who claim they "don't care," that we find the money to get the Secretary of State a secure mobile communication system. I would be very curious to know if people like Leon Panetta and Michael Hayden carry unsecured phones.

I agree with you, here.

Richard Parker 04-02-2016 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherrerd (Post 19229652)
You have no real way of knowing who is a Burning Bush and who is just a self-important, officious bureaucrat.

How many secret memos addressed to her individually and exhorting her to stop a particular communications practice do you think she received and directly responded to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherrerd (Post 19229652)
It's worth recalling, too, that in 2009 we did not possess all the knowledge that the intervening years have brought us, here in 2016.

In January 2009, WikiLeaks began publishing intercepted phone calls. Around that time, the British phone hacking scandal received widespread attention. Accordingly, she was individually and specifically warned of the vulnerabilities in her use of an unsecured Blackberry on March 6, 2009.

WikiLeaks started publishing stolen State Department documents in February 2010, and became world news in April 2010. For many months after that, her server still had remote access capabilities activated without use of a VPN and had no threat monitoring software installed, among other vulnerabilities.

I do not expect Hillary Clinton to have appreciated how insecure her setup was. I do expect her, and anyone in her position, to take seriously individualized warnings from people she receives on subjects she doesn't know enough about to judge for herself. And I certainly expect that if she agrees with the security threat assessment that she will then change her behavior.

sleestak 04-03-2016 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Ace (Post 19228901)
It's REALLY hard for me to take this seriously. I've worked in IT for half my life, and even in this day and age I run into a large number of people who just have no clue when it comes to digital security. Regular, intelligent people who can't seem to follow the simplest of rules, and you can talk to them until you're blue in the face. ESPECIALLY executives. That doesn't make them criminal, regardless of the Republicans and other anti-Clintonites who want to make this into the next great conspiracy.

If you cannot expain the importance of security to someone in a way that they will take seriously then you shouldn't be speaking to them about security. Let someone who can do it.

I've been in IT for along time and I have managed to convince every exec that balked at doing things the right way to actually do things in the right way. It took some persuasion, and in one case a threat to go to the state government about it, but in the end they always complied.

Clinton was told by experts that this was a bad idea and did it anyway. That shows either astoundingly bad judgement or a don't give a fuck attitude.

Given that Clinton wants to hold one of the most powerful positions on the planet, why would anyone think she would listen to experts in other fields? And the President has to listen to experts in all kinds of areas to be able to govern well.

When a government employee puts their convenience ahead of everything else, there is a serious problem.

Slee

GIGObuster 04-03-2016 06:30 PM

Based on what I have seen so far, and the fact that the investigation so far is an FBI review of the security of the data, it is clear that the IT also noticed how "stupid" the setup was and while there was criticism of what Clinton was doing I also think that there were IT workers that also did agree with what Clinton was doing or did not see what the big deal was.

I would not be surprised that some of those experts did mess up. They were not supposed to be there and those are the ones that I think will suffer the consecuences the most.

Johnny Ace 04-03-2016 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleestak (Post 19231722)
If you cannot expain the importance of security to someone in a way that they will take seriously then you shouldn't be speaking to them about security. Let someone who can do it.

I've been in IT for along time and I have managed to convince every exec that balked at doing things the right way to actually do things in the right way. It took some persuasion, and in one case a threat to go to the state government about it, but in the end they always complied.

Clinton was told by experts that this was a bad idea and did it anyway. That shows either astoundingly bad judgement or a don't give a fuck attitude.

Given that Clinton wants to hold one of the most powerful positions on the planet, why would anyone think she would listen to experts in other fields? And the President has to listen to experts in all kinds of areas to be able to govern well.

When a government employee puts their convenience ahead of everything else, there is a serious problem.

Slee

Well, that's an interesting way of denigrating both my abilities and Hillary's. Thanks for that. But since you know pretty much nothing of the circumstances surrounding either nor exactly what those abilities are, I suggest maybe you should stick to doing your own job.

Oh yeah and I'd love to see you threaten the Secretary of State. Good luck with that.

steronz 04-03-2016 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIGObuster (Post 19231856)
Based on what I have seen so far, and the fact that the investigation so far is an FBI review of the security of the data, it is clear that the IT also noticed how "stupid" the setup was and while there was criticism of what Clinton was doing I also think that there were IT workers that also did agree with what Clinton was doing or did not see what the big deal was.

:dubious: I don't know who these people are who don't see what the big deal is.

I work in IT for the government, so I'm imagining myself in that situation. Clinton wants to check her private email from a government BB; I can (and would) say no to that. Clinton doesn't want to carry 2 BBs so she says she doesn't even want a government email account then; great, I can't force her to use one. Clinton wants to check her email at work (in the SCIF) though, so she needs to bring her BB inside. I can say hell no to that. Clinton wants to configure a desktop (unclassified) computer inside the SCIF to connect to her IMAP server; I can sell Jesus Christ no way to that. Clinton then (according to this latest round of emails) proposes the absurd solution of bringing a dedicated computer into the SCIF and connecting it to the outside world via a separate (commercial?) line, so she can connect to her email server. I throw my hands up in the air and wonder what planet I'm on while I say no and walk away.

But that's all I can do. I can say no, no, no, to every stupid workaround she proposes for the situation she's put herself in by refusing to carry 2 Blackberries, but I can't actually dictate which email address all of her contacts use to email her.

I've gone on record here saying that I think the classified email info is overblown, but I can't stress enough just how dumb it was to insist on using her own private server despite all the annoyances it must have caused. I think Richard Parker is right, at some point with all the IT people saying no, no, no, it should have clicked that it was just a bad idea.

GIGObuster 04-03-2016 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steronz (Post 19232071)
I've gone on record here saying that I think the classified email info is overblown, but I can't stress enough just how dumb it was to insist on using her own private server despite all the annoyances it must have caused. I think Richard Parker is right, at some point with all the IT people saying no, no, no, it should have clicked that it was just a bad idea.

But there is trouble with that affirmation, you do not know how many did say no, or that there were other conversations made in other channels that told her to go ahead, I have the hunch (yes it is a guess too, but I do think it fits the information given so far) that this is the main reason why the FBI is not considering this a criminal investigation, we should not forget that even early it was pointed out that what Clinton did was not illegal regarding her server, unless we want to become a nation that will base their rules on post hock laws.

Of course I do think that those IT minions were in turn shown to be wrong later. I also have experience in IT, and this looks like a case of minions letting it go for convenience too and finding later that no, they should not had let go, but it is too late now; the FBI is left to figure out if information was indeed looked at by enemies and how to prevent this issue from happening again. And because it is not likely to happen again and it is so unlikely that she could be indicted for this, this is mostly useful now to see who's Republicans get blamed for using a bazooka to get the Clinton fly..

And missing still, I expect to see more Republicans get in trouble by the angry citizens that got promises that they would see Hillary going to jail for this.

BigT 04-04-2016 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19217845)
Yes, it has been all of two or three days since these latest details were reported. How can we still be talking about it?!

That would be far more convincing if those details told us anything we didn't already know. Even if you hadn't already guessed that, I can't see how it's supposedly something that would take someone on one side to the other side.

Nor do I see a point when you admit she didn't do it nefariously, which gets rid of the real problem. She's just like every other person in the world, who puts convenience above security.

I only fault the system for allowing her to do it in the first place, instead of forcing her to set up a secure server.

sleestak 04-05-2016 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Ace (Post 19232049)
Well, that's an interesting way of denigrating both my abilities and Hillary's. Thanks for that. But since you know pretty much nothing of the circumstances surrounding either nor exactly what those abilities are, I suggest maybe you should stick to doing your own job.

Oh yeah and I'd love to see you threaten the Secretary of State. Good luck with that.

I don't care what your abilities are unless you start claiming that your inability to do your job should be the standard everyone is held to in the field.

If some one is asking an IT person (actually anyone, the field doesn't really matter) to do things that are highly questionable and/or possibly illegal, the only response is to educate them on the proper method

If the person refuses then the two options are to a) quit or b) go to the proper authority. If, in the case of Clinton, the proper authority is the boss, then you go to the press. If the person is in a position of great importance, then the proper response should be a and b if the person will not budge.

I would have had no problem telling Clinton that what she was doing was insanely stupid. Might have been fired but there are other jobs and there wouldn't be the whole grilled by the F.B.I. thing.

I have told a multiple billionaires no during my career. The guy who I threatened with going to the state board was a billionaire who could have fired my ass on the spot since he owned the business.

One of the problems is that too many people kowtow to people like Clinton. Instead of making a stand on what is right too many people get all impressed with titles and do things that they know they shouldn't.

And Clinton knows this. Clinton also knows that lying works. So instead of doing things the right way she has (and will continue) to do things her way regardless of how stupid it is. This will go on until there are real consequences for her actions.

Slee

Fotheringay-Phipps 04-05-2016 12:58 PM

I don't know how this applies to the specific case of Clinton, but I disagree as a general rule. Meaning, there are a lot of areas where you do one thing "by the book" but as a practical matter things are just not done that way. (Of course, this applies to a whole lot of other political (& business) scandals, and many of the people who are vehemently defending Clinton don't take that same approach when it's a politician (or business executive) who they dislike.) But as a practical matter, if you're some low-level guy with expertise in a certain area, it's very difficult to try to force senior people in your organization to keep things by the book, especially if these are these are things that are widely disregarded by many other senior leaders.

Johnny Ace 04-05-2016 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleestak (Post 19236231)
I don't care what your abilities are unless you start claiming that your inability to do your job should be the standard everyone is held to in the field.

If some one is asking an IT person (actually anyone, the field doesn't really matter) to do things that are highly questionable and/or possibly illegal, the only response is to educate them on the proper method

If the person refuses then the two options are to a) quit or b) go to the proper authority. If, in the case of Clinton, the proper authority is the boss, then you go to the press. If the person is in a position of great importance, then the proper response should be a and b if the person will not budge.

I would have had no problem telling Clinton that what she was doing was insanely stupid. Might have been fired but there are other jobs and there wouldn't be the whole grilled by the F.B.I. thing.

I have told a multiple billionaires no during my career. The guy who I threatened with going to the state board was a billionaire who could have fired my ass on the spot since he owned the business.

One of the problems is that too many people kowtow to people like Clinton. Instead of making a stand on what is right too many people get all impressed with titles and do things that they know they shouldn't.

And Clinton knows this. Clinton also knows that lying works. So instead of doing things the right way she has (and will continue) to do things her way regardless of how stupid it is. This will go on until there are real consequences for her actions.

Slee

Ri-ight. You know jackshit about me, so I'll skip the perhaps part and say stfu with your judgment of that which you know nothing.

Lots of big talk there, Mr. internet, and no substantiation, other than moral judgment of that which you, once again, do not know.

Richard Parker 04-05-2016 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 19232528)
That would be far more convincing if those details told us anything we didn't already know.

On what date was the March 6, 2009 memo, and her response to it, first reported? This was the first article in which I saw those details, among others.

In my view, that memo and her response is one of the biggest things that makes this a scandal. She wasn't just violating some generic protocol, in a way she didn't fully appreciate, and in a way lots of her predecessors did. Instead, she was contradicting specific advice given individually to her, with lengthy explanation and justification warning her of a specific threat, which she agreed with and then continued to ignore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 19232528)
Nor do I see a point when you admit she didn't do it nefariously, which gets rid of the real problem. She's just like every other person in the world, who puts convenience above security. I only fault the system for allowing her to do it in the first place, instead of forcing her to set up a secure server.

She isn't just like every other person in the world. She was the Secretary of State of the United States of America. She was easily in the top five targets of foreign intelligence surveillance. Her deciding to put convenience above security is quite different in character from the low-level DOD employee who backs stuff up to Dropbox instead of using his secured USB drive.

I don't know by what mechanism you imagine "the system" could force her to use better security. The way "the system" does that is to send her a strongly-worded memo telling her that her actions risk national security. I suppose they also take it over her head and talk to POTUS if need be. But that assumes they knew she continued to use the unsecured phone after she told them she had gotten the message.

Sam Stone 04-06-2016 03:33 PM

The fact that she went to so much effort in the beginning belies the excuse that her home server was just 'convenient'. She either knew she was taking big risks, or she's too stupid to be president. If she knew she was taking risks and still went to extraordinary lengths to avoid using government mail services, you really have to step back and ask why.

The most charitable explanation is that she thought Republicans would go on endless FOIA expeditions, and she wasn't about to let them get away with it. The least charitable explanation is that she was avoiding FOIA because she was up to something shady, possibly involving the Clinton Foundation.

The investigation into this supposedly involves 147 FBI agents. It doesn't take that many agents just to go through the E-mails, so I am sure they have agents following up chains of information, trying to find out where the classified info came from, who else might know about it, etc. If it's true that SAP information was found on her hard drive with passages word-for-word from the original documents, then someone committed a felony transcribing it.

I wouldn't be surprised if multiple indictments come out of this, including people who we don't even know about yet. Whether Hillary will be one of them is an open question.

Hillary seems to me to be very Nixonian in disposition. Nixon was smart and pretty effective, but his undoing was his personal paranoia and secretive disposition, coupled with a 'rules don't apply to me when I am right' attitude.

ElvisL1ves 04-06-2016 03:34 PM

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

Lightnin' 04-06-2016 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Stone (Post 19239540)
The investigation into this supposedly involves 147 FBI agents.

Actually, it's apparently more like twelve.

Sherrerd 04-06-2016 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Stone (Post 19239540)
The investigation into this supposedly involves 147 FBI agents. ....

Uh, no.

Quote:

On Monday, it was reported that 147 FBI agents have been working on the review of Hillary Clinton‘s email server, a report which I immediately called BS on loudly and thoroughly. As the week progressed, the reporting caught up with what was already obvious, and it turns out there are only about 12 agents working on it, maybe. On Thursday night, All In with Chris Hayes host Chris Hayes did a segment debunking the reporting:
...
http://www.mediaite.com/online/why-d...hillary-email/

GIGObuster 04-06-2016 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Stone (Post 19239540)
The investigation into this supposedly involves 147 FBI agents. It doesn't take that many agents just to go through the E-mails, so I am sure they have agents following up chains of information, trying to find out where the classified info came from, who else might know about it, etc. If it's true that SAP information was found on her hard drive with passages word-for-word from the original documents, then someone committed a felony transcribing it.

I wouldn't be surprised if multiple indictments come out of this, including people who we don't even know about yet. Whether Hillary will be one of them is an open question.

So it follows that if that number of agents involved was pulled by the media from their nether regions then it is less likely that the FBI is not doing more than what they told us before no?

Well..:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03...hat-nea/209615
Quote:

Washington Post Corrects Faulty Report That Nearly 150 FBI Agents Are Investigating
The Post Now Reports "The Number Of FBI Personnel Involved Is Fewer Than 50"

The Washington Post has retracted its anonymously sourced claim that 147 FBI agents are detailed to the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, and is now reporting that the real number is fewer than 50. Media outlets trumpeted the Post's report of the supposedly "staggering" number of FBI agents working the investigation as bad news for Clinton.

On March 27, the Post published a 5,000-word article detailing the FBI's investigation into Clinton's use of a private email and personal Blackberry device during her time as secretary of state. The original story reported: "One hundred forty-seven FBI agents have been deployed to run down leads, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey."

The Post's claim spread throughout the media, with outlets frequently highlighting the 147 figure in their headlines and some using the report to attack Clinton. National Review termed the figure "a staggering deployment of manpower," while Breitbart News celebrated the "FBI recently kick[ing] its investigation into high gear." The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza highlighted the "eye-popping" 147 figure by commenting, "W-H-A-T?", adding that the reported number of agents seemed "like a ton for a story that Clinton has always insisted was really, at heart, a right-wing Republican creation," while MSNBC's Joe Scarborough called the number the "worst kept secret in DC for months." The story was also highlighted in several segments on Fox News.

But the next day, Politico reported that the Post's story might be inaccurate. According to Politico, an official close to the investigation refuted the Post's report, saying that "The FBI does not have close to 150 agents working the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's email server" and that the Post's "number is greatly exaggerated."

The Washington Post issued a correction to both their initial story on March 29, explaining that they incorrectly reported "that 147 FBI agents had been detailed to the investigation" and that multiple U.S. law enforcement officials "have since told The Washington Post that figure is too high" and the actual number of "FBI personnel involved in the case is fewer than 50":
It remains a security audit or review made by the FBI that is not a criminal investigation. So, yeah, it would still be surprising to see recommendations (the FBI can not indict people as it was pointed many times before) to indict.

Sam Stone 04-06-2016 03:46 PM

Interesting. I am pretty sure I read that in the Washington Post's long article about it. I stand corrected.

Edit after seeing Gigobuster's post: I guess I did see it there.

Boyo Jim 04-06-2016 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Stone (Post 19239540)
...The most charitable explanation is that she thought Republicans would go on endless FOIA expeditions, and she wasn't about to let them get away with it. ...

No, the most charitable explanation is that she saw no compelling reason to change the emails system she was already using. I'm not saying this was the right decision, but it doesn't require a deliberate attempt on her part to stifle Republican inquiries.

Or am I missing something? Is there any evidence that Hilary set up this personal system after she became SOS, as an alternative to the official channels would have been offered when she got in office?

Richard Parker 04-06-2016 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim (Post 19239597)
Or am I missing something? Is there any evidence that Hilary set up this personal system after she became SOS, as an alternative to the official channels would have been offered when she got in office?

I think you have that right. She continued to use the system she had used during the campaign, which had been set up even before that.

John_Stamos'_Left_Ear 04-07-2016 02:10 AM

Want to see why I don't care?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleestak (Post 19236231)
One of the problems is that too many people kowtow to people like Clinton. Instead of making a stand on what is right too many people get all impressed with titles and do things that they know they shouldn't.

And Clinton knows this. Clinton also knows that lying works. So instead of doing things the right way she has (and will continue) to do things her way regardless of how stupid it is. This will go on until there are real consequences for her actions.

This. Shrill, Clinton bashing. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, Benghazi. The Clinton Foundation. Vince Foster. Yeah, very familiar that sound.

Let me know when the sky is actually falling. Thanks.

adaher 04-07-2016 06:37 AM

Since we now know that the investigation won't be complete until after she's nominated, and you really don't care what she did(and many Clinton supporters share your view), then if she is indicted, or the damage is so bad from the final report that her candidacy is sunk, that means I'll hear no whining from you about a replacement candidate? Because once she's nominated, she's the candidate. No backsies.

ElvisL1ves 04-07-2016 06:41 AM

A man can dream.

iiandyiiii 04-07-2016 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19240962)
Since we now know that the investigation won't be complete until after she's nominated, and you really don't care what she did(and many Clinton supporters share your view), then if she is indicted, or the damage is so bad from the final report that her candidacy is sunk, that means I'll hear no whining from you about a replacement candidate? Because once she's nominated, she's the candidate. No backsies.

How do we know that the investigation won't be complete until after she's nominated? Share your time machine, please.

adaher 04-07-2016 07:31 AM

Comey didn't say for sure that it would be after the convention, but he did say there's no pressure to get it done by then.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...-by-convention

jayjay 04-07-2016 07:38 AM

Frankly, I don't care if she's convicted of killing Vince Foster before or after the convention. She's STILL better than anyone who's ever been running on the Republican side this cycle. Anyone.

iiandyiiii 04-07-2016 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19241037)
Comey didn't say for sure that it would be after the convention, but he did say there's no pressure to get it done by then.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...-by-convention

So he pretty much said nothing, then.

LonghornDave 04-07-2016 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim (Post 19239597)
Or am I missing something? Is there any evidence that Hilary set up this personal system after she became SOS, as an alternative to the official channels would have been offered when she got in office?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19240339)
I think you have that right. She continued to use the system she had used during the campaign, which had been set up even before that.

I think this is partially true and partially false. The domain she used was set up immediately prior to becoming Secretary of State (registered on 1/13/09, the day of her Senate confirmation hearings).

https://who.is/whois/clintonemail.com

Having said that, there was a prior email server set up at their home (used by Bill Clinton). They replaced that prior to becoming Secretary of State with a server that her presidential campaign had been using.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...7ae_story.html

Quote:

For instance, the server installed in her Chappaqua, N.Y., home as she was preparing to take office as secretary of state was originally used by her first campaign for the presidency, in 2008, according to two people briefed on the setup. A staffer who was on the payroll of her political action committee set it up in her home, replacing a server that Clinton’s husband, former president Bill Clinton, had been using in the house.
Seems like the timeline is that Bill Clinton had a private server installed at their Chappaqua home for his use. Hillary Clinton's campaign set up a private server for her campaigns use. When preparing to become Secretary of State, they took her campaign's server and installed it at their Chappaqua home, replacing Bill's old server, and registered a new domain to use.

So it's definitely not true to say she was just continuing to use the same setup she was using before as some matter of convenience. It is true that she (and Bill Clinton) used private servers before and that they were essentially updated and upgraded prior to taking on the position.

Richard Parker 04-07-2016 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDave (Post 19241228)
So it's definitely not true to say she was just continuing to use the same setup she was using before as some matter of convenience.

It depends on what you mean by "same setup." If you mean an unsecured Blackberry using a personal email server located at her home, then the setup didn't change, right?

LonghornDave 04-07-2016 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19241764)
It depends on what you mean by "same setup." If you mean an unsecured Blackberry using a personal email server located at her home, then the setup didn't change, right?

Well, wasn't she using a personal server located somewhere other than her home during her campaign. From what I've read, I think Bill Clinton was using a personal email server (different from the Hillary Clinton campaign server) located at their home. Not sure where her server was located, maybe where ever her campaign headquarters was located. Re-quoting from here.

Quote:

For instance, the server installed in her Chappaqua, N.Y., home as she was preparing to take office as secretary of state was originally used by her first campaign for the presidency, in 2008, according to two people briefed on the setup. A staffer who was on the payroll of her political action committee set it up in her home, replacing a server that Clinton’s husband, former president Bill Clinton, had been using in the house.
This gets a little ridiculous though. When average people talk about keeping their same email for convenience they would mean the same email address. She clearly was using a different email address since they didn't even register the domain until her confirmation hearings.

Richard Parker 04-07-2016 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDave (Post 19242401)
Well, wasn't she using a personal server located somewhere other than her home during her campaign. From what I've read, I think Bill Clinton was using a personal email server (different from the Hillary Clinton campaign server) located at their home. Not sure where her server was located, maybe where ever her campaign headquarters was located. Re-quoting from here.

I don't read your quote as saying they moved the server from somewhere else to her home, but even if that's so, I'm not sure it matters to the lay definition of "same setup." See below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDave (Post 19242401)
When average people talk about keeping their same email for convenience they would mean the same email address. She clearly was using a different email address since they didn't even register the domain until her confirmation hearings.

I disagree. When people talk about keeping the same setup convenience, they aren't talking about domain names. They mean her continuing to use an unsecured Blackberry accessing some personal server, as distinct from PCs accessing a government server.

LonghornDave 04-07-2016 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19242411)
I don't read your quote as saying they moved the server from somewhere else to her home, but even if that's so, I'm not sure it matters to the lay definition of "same setup." See below.

I don't see how it can be read any other way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19242411)
I disagree. When people talk about keeping the same setup convenience, they aren't talking about domain names. They mean her continuing to use an unsecured Blackberry accessing some personal server, as distinct from PCs accessing a government server.

This seems incredibly strange to me. What would inconvenience you more, if your work email address changed or if they swapped out servers and your email address stayed the same? I am guessing 99.9% of people would be far more inconvenienced by having to change their email address than any change to the server.

Further, I think you are confusing the issue. She could have still used a Blackberry to access her email even if she was using a government address. She wasn't supposed to use a smart phone of any type in certain secure locations. Further, she wasn't supposed to send classified information in email regardless of whether it was a personal email address or a state address. The fact is that when you are handling classified material there are going to be some inconveniences involved.

Sage Rat 04-07-2016 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 19228847)
But the only people capable of intelligently evaluating the magnitude of the security risk posed by her IT practices had told her it was a big deal. She did not have the technological knowledge to evaluate that risk for herself.

You don't have to be technologically knowledgeable to get the idea, "China is reading all (100%) of your e-mails."

Richard Parker 04-07-2016 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDave (Post 19242793)
This seems incredibly strange to me. What would inconvenience you more, if your work email address changed or if they swapped out servers and your email address stayed the same? I am guessing 99.9% of people would be far more inconvenienced by having to change their email address than any change to the server.

That's irrelevant to what it means to use the "same setup" in the context of this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDave (Post 19242793)
She could have still used a Blackberry to access her email even if she was using a government address. She wasn't supposed to use a smart phone of any type in certain secure locations. Further, she wasn't supposed to send classified information in email regardless of whether it was a personal email address or a state address. The fact is that when you are handling classified material there are going to be some inconveniences involved.

Incorrect. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Respectively.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sage Rat (Post 19242972)
You don't have to be technologically knowledgeable to get the idea, "China is reading all (100%) of your e-mails."

Yes, I agree, which is pretty much the whole thesis of my thread here.

adaher 04-07-2016 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayjay (Post 19241051)
Frankly, I don't care if she's convicted of killing Vince Foster before or after the convention. She's STILL better than anyone who's ever been running on the Republican side this cycle. Anyone.

And the voters will get to judge that if she's indicted after being nominated, with no switches allowed. You either choose Sanders now or never. It's not "Clinton, then if indicted, go with Sanders."

Trinopus 04-07-2016 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19243244)
. . . with no switches allowed. . . .

Cite?

(Also, this is absurd. There isn't even a criminal investigation. You're imagining things if you think an indictment is in the offing. You might as well bring up Benghazi again. Seriously: this is a really dumb idea, and is not going to happen.)

Jophiel 04-07-2016 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19240962)
Because once she's nominated, she's the candidate. No backsies.

Well, not necessarily. If she was to withdraw between the convention and the election then the Democratic party picks a new nominee.
Quote:

Since the time of Andrew Jackson's run for the presidency in 1828, individual political parties have had the job of filling any vacancy on their national ticket, either that of their presidential or vice-presidential candidate. If one of their candidates vacates the ticket after they are nominated, either because of death or withdrawal, the party selects a replacement.

Both the Republican and the Democratic parties have rules in their bylaws governing how to fill the vacancy. The Party Chair calls a meeting of the National Committee, and the Committee members at the meeting vote to fill the vacancy on the ticket. A candidate must receive a majority of the votes to win the party's nod.

The same process would happen if the vacancy were to occur after the general election but before the Electoral College voting. If a vacancy should occur on the winning ticket, it would then be the party's responsibility to fill it and provide a candidate for whom their electors could vote.
You're voting on electoral college members to pick a president in December, not on a specific person. Provided that the DNC can get the electoral college members who stay in line, the candidate for president is whoever they want it to be.

Johnny Ace 04-07-2016 09:51 PM

Quote:

The same process would happen if the vacancy were to occur after the general election but before the Electoral College voting. If a vacancy should occur on the winning ticket, it would then be the party's responsibility to fill it and provide a candidate for whom their electors could vote.
That would be chaos. I would think that the likelihood would be that the opposing party's candidate would win in that situation. You can't just apply states' electoral votes to a new candidate.

Grumman 04-07-2016 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Ace (Post 19243334)
That would be chaos. I would think that the likelihood would be that the opposing party's candidate would win in that situation.

I agree. If the Democratic Party tells everyone Hillary Clinton is the best person for the job, and then have to pick someone else because the best person for the job is being indicted for criminal negligence in her handling of classified information, the Democratic Party's credibility will be shaken and their endorsement will be less effective.

adaher 04-07-2016 10:24 PM

Especially since they can't claim ignorance about what she did. But sure, there are various ways to change the candidate, depending on state ballot laws, and I guess the EC could be a final shot at doing a switcheroo.

My point was simply that I don't want to hear whining if for whatever reason the switch can't be successfully pulled off. The party had every opportunity to back a challenger and declined. The voters were well informed of her issues. There's just no excuse if it all goes tits up between the convention and the election.

GIGObuster 04-07-2016 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grumman (Post 19243374)
I agree. If the Democratic Party tells everyone Hillary Clinton is the best person for the job, and then have to pick someone else because the best person for the job is being indicted for criminal negligence in her handling of classified information, the Democratic Party's credibility will be shaken and their endorsement will be less effective.

That would be a big problem if the Democrats had a choice like the Republicans have now, that choice looks like picking between Tamerlane and Attila the Hun. The Democrats "problem" is to choose between two politicians that look like Margaret Thatcher and Benjamin Disraeli.

I actually do not see a big issue for a switch among the Democrats if it is needed. The republicans are the ones that wished that they had the "problems" the democrats have now.

adaher 04-07-2016 10:49 PM

We'll see if that's true come August or so. By then the national polls actually will have meaning, and Clinton will be in the clear by then, assuming she hasn't gotten her entitled self into more problems by bending the rules.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.