# I have changed my mind about the Clinton email scandal (and so should you) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 29, 2016, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514 "2016-03-29T13:31:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2016, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/361 "2016-06-18T15:19:56Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Exactly when did you cut the rope tying it to Benghazi? I’m not sure why you think this matters. So, ok. Benghazi was an excuse for a fishing expedition. That doesn’t mean you can handwave the fish they caught. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2016, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/362 "2016-06-18T15:25:28Z")
It does keep the \*size \*of the fish in perspective, doesn’t it? It does show the extent they had to go to find something to Get Her with, to find the evidence of defective character that they needed to spread. Just like it took a blowjob for them to get Bubba for something they just _knew_ about him. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/363 "2016-06-19T00:23:24Z")
> [@crypto](#): > > By who? You? Corporate America? > > Love him or hate him, Bill Clinton was good for 2 specific sets of people… The uber-rich and his own family fortune. > > the dismantling of Glass-Stegal and NAFTA were done for the rich. Bill Clinton was paid handsomely for his efforts. > > His “legacy” is spoonfed to you by a corporate media who benefitted (and continues to benefit) by the de-regulation of media monopolies. When 6 mega corporations control 90% of the media you consume, you have to really look hard for reality. > > If you are lazy and your family has not personally been impacted by his falied presidency, good for you. > > NAFTA was a dismantling of the middle class in America. That may be ok with you, but as a “Democratic” president, he stabbed the core base of what the democratic party us supposed to stand for, all for the benefit of the rich. > > The rich are telling you how successful his presidency was. Can’t you see that? History is written by the winners. > > This is such an oversimplification of the issue, but I am not surprised. People get their information from CNN or MSNBC talking points. > > I understand. You are busy. You have a life. You need to check the sports scores, your FB page, and the latest “tweet”. > > Do some research. Seek out opinions different than the mainstream. Open your mind. Try taking yourself out of the left/right, Democratic/Republican paradigm. Stop being a fan of your “team”. > > She did not make “poor decisions about her e-mail.” She did exactly what she wanted/needed to do to try and keep her activity off the record. There was a reason for that. What do you suppose it was for? Don’t think about it as a partisan democrat (they are attacking her for no reason!). Don’t think about it as a partisan republican (let’s get this witch!) > > Think about it logically. Take emotion out of it. Why would she do it? Why when caught would she try to wipe the server? Why when pressed, does she not give a straight answer? What exactly is she hiding? She was SoS, not some summer intern who didn’t understand and made a mistake. She set the server up exactly the way she did because she didn’t want the State Dept. to see what she was doing and have a copy of each and every communication she made as SoS. Why? Do you honestly believe she sent 10’s of thousands of e-mails about yoga? > > If you can’t take your personal bias out of it, then flip the scenario. What if your candidate’s opponent did what Clinton did. What if that person, as SoS, had a server that had National Security secrets on a non-secure, hackable server? If “Guciffer” could break in, do you honestly think the Russians/Chinese/whoever don’t have all that information? Do you not think the US would not exploit this server if it was sitting in Putin’s basement? > > I won’t do the research for you. You need to want to do it for yourself. People have been forced to “choose sides”, like they are rooting for Hulk Hogan vs. Andre the Giant. What people cannot grasp is politics have become the WWE. It is staged. > > Republican… Democrat… There is no significant difference any longer. > > Take a look at the Clinton Foundation. Follow the money. > > Think critically. You will know you have crossed the rubicon when you hear the giant “POP”. So after having the “everyone with a security clearance agrees with me” gambit failed, you choose the “anyone who has an open mind agrees with me” gambit? Weak. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/364 "2016-06-19T05:53:23Z")
There’s a huge difference between the Clintons and the Republicans. The Clintons actually accomplished conservative ends. Republicans just talk about them. ---
**Author:** ![crypto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@crypto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crypto)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/365 "2016-06-20T22:31:51Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So after having the “everyone with a security clearance agrees with me” gambit failed, you choose the “anyone who has an open mind agrees with me” gambit? > > Weak. If you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger. Standard. ---
**Author:** ![crypto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@crypto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crypto)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/366 "2016-06-20T22:49:29Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > She claimed she didn’t delete anything relevant. Then the FBI was able to retrieve most, if not all of those emails. Here is what folks don’t seem to realize… If what we’ve heard about the US information collection dragnet is true, deleting those emails wouldn’t matter. The gov’t has them all, and can see what she had on that server. Now if the FBI can show she deleted relevant emails, now THAT would matter… assuming, of course, it is a legitimate investigation. But there should be no mystery to anyone in the govt. what HRC was up to. And **Johnny Ace** , you say you went to the USNA. Did you graduate? Did you serve? If so, would you really be OK with the US SoS handling national security and state information like this? What if an enemy was able to learn something that cost you, your fellow servicemen, or any ally their lives? Do you really think this doesn’t matter? Is it all about Democrat vs. Republican? I simply don’t understand people who make this into an “R” vs. “D” debate. If this happened under Bush, I’d be just as adamant. If national security issues are really just political footballs, then they really don’t mean anything. To anyone. So just trash the security classification system altogether. It’s an expensive charade. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/367 "2016-06-20T23:02:56Z")
> [@crypto](#): > > …What if an enemy was able to learn something that cost you, your fellow servicemen, or any ally their lives?.. Careful, **Ravenman**. This could be a trap! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/368 "2016-06-20T23:29:55Z")
> [@crypto](#): > > If national security issues are really just political footballs, then they really don’t mean anything. To anyone. So just trash the security classification system altogether. It’s an expensive charade. This is a strawman. Nobody says that. Howver, if you’re really worried about security, [guess what](http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/06/16/hillary-clinton-email-non-scandal-column/85718386/): > [@](#): > > Notwithstanding the usual hype, a close reading of the [42-page report](https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf) (plus timely recommendations and appendices) reveals that the State Department system was [susceptible](https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf) to cyberattacks both before and after Secretary Clinton’s tenure. Some experts have suggested that Clinton’s server was [as secure](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/27/clintons-claims-about-receiving-or-sending-classified-material-on-her-private-email-system/), and maybe even [more secure](http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis), than the department’s system. You should thank her for clearly making the efforts to make our national security more secure. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/369 "2016-06-20T23:30:46Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > There’s a huge difference between the Clintons and the Republicans. > > The Clintons actually accomplished conservative ends. Republicans just talk about them. So when are you just going to bite the damn bullet, switch parties and help keep “New Democrats” winning Dem primaries and win elections? You always seem to want to poke Dems about how Hillary ain’t all that but basically your only complaint is she was bad to try and hide her email. You’re being irrational. Get on the trolley, dude. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/370 "2016-06-20T23:40:34Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > This is a strawman. Nobody says that. > > Howver, if you’re really worried about security, [guess what](http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/06/16/hillary-clinton-email-non-scandal-column/85718386/):You should thank her for clearly making the efforts to make our national security more secure. On my phone. Can you list the names of the IT security experts who say her server was more secure than a government server? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/371 "2016-06-20T23:41:30Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > On my phone. Can you list the names of the IT security experts who say her server was more secure than a government server? You can’t click links on your phone? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/372 "2016-06-20T23:47:45Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > You can’t click links on your phone? Just hard to skim efficiently on my phone. Feel free to ignore my polite request, and I’ll find out later if the USA Today editorial substantiates its claim or not. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/373 "2016-06-20T23:54:18Z")
First link goes to Steven Aftergood, who is a political activist and physicist, according to Wikipedia. I see no credentials that make him an expert in IT much less cybersecurity much less government IT security. Is it worth the effort to scroll through the second one? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/374 "2016-06-20T23:55:58Z")
The “more secure” claim is from Richard O. Lempert, [a lawyer](http://www.brookings.edu/experts/lempertr), not an IT person, in [American Prospect](http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis): > [@](#): > > There is the interesting question of whether the inadvertently transferred classified emails were more or less secure because they were on Clinton’s server rather than on a State Department server. The FBI investigation may provide an answer. From a distance, it seems possible that Clinton’s messages were more secure on her server than they would have been on the State Department’s servers, even if the latter were protected by a technically superior firewall. The State Department’s systems are reportedly regular targets of hackers. Few knew that Clinton used a personal server for business emails, so hacker attacks may have been far less common if they happened at all. Also hackers often gain access to systems by fooling users into downloading malicious programs or clicking on malicious web sites. Since few people had accounts that accessed Clinton’s servers, the chance that someone might inadvertently open a door to hackers is most likely much less. Finally, after a few months, transactions with Clinton’s servers were reportedly encrypted. Because of the difficulties posed by the need to accommodate different server and computer generations, the government has lagged behind the private sector in encryption. There is evidence that the State Department’s email gets [hacked all the time](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/state-department-shuts-down-its-e-mail-system-amid-concerns-about-hacking/2014/11/16/92cf0722-4815-41ca-b602-9bfe8ecdb256_story.html), even after Hillary Clinton left office. There is [no evidence](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/security-logs-of-hillary-clintons-email-server-are-said-to-show-no-evidence-of-hacking.html?_r=0) that Clinton’s email servers were hacked despite what the [Right Wing Media](http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/05/05/right-wing-media-run-imprisoned-hacker-s-evidence-free-claim-he-breached-clinton-s-server/210252) says. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/375 "2016-06-20T23:57:22Z")
So, IOW, no IT security expert supports that claim. Among other reasons, because they know better than the sociologist and political activist what “no signs of hacking” means on an unmonitored basement server. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/376 "2016-06-21T00:02:50Z")
Right, I am sure that server that was never hacked was just an insecure mess. Much safer on that stellar State Department server that gets hacked all the time. Two years after she stopped being Secretary Of State [they’re being hacked](http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/state-department-hack-worst-ever/), in fact, but I’m sure that when Clinton was Secretary Of State it was simply a fortress. Anyway, I’ll just go back to not caring about her emails. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/377 "2016-06-21T00:10:47Z")
Believe whatever you want. I was just intrigued by the prospect of experts saying her server was more secure. I am not surprised to learn that claim is misleading, since they are not experts in the relevant area of knowledge. It’s the same way climate change deniers cite “experts” who are metallurgists and lawyers. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/378 "2016-06-21T00:42:09Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Believe whatever you want. I was just intrigued by the prospect of experts saying her server was more secure. I am not surprised to learn that claim is misleading, since they are not experts in the relevant area of knowledge. It’s the same way climate change deniers cite “experts” who are metallurgists and lawyers. The claim is not misleading. You act like [Hillary set it up herself](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51s8TFsnsCL._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg). The Clinton’s hired people (notably Bryan Pagliano) to build and run the server. They are (and presumably still are unless they and Vince Foster are hanging out in hell somewhere) IT professionals. Here’s [his LinkedIn page](https://www.linkedin.com/in/bryan-pagliano-a8b3542). I am fairly confident that he, as an IT professional, would tell you the server was secure. As evidence of this, I am sure he would point out that it was never hacked while the servers the State Department used were hacked all the time. So if you insist on an IT expert, I give you the guy who set it up. He plead the fifth, of course, so he won’t tell you shit. But contrary to all of the right wing news sources that latched onto this as supposedly damning or something, it’s actually [the smart thing to do](http://crooksandliars.com:8080/2016/06/bryan-pagliano-really-really-just-wants-be): > [@](#): > > Pagliano is a geek. He’s not a token geek, or a weekend geek, or a geek that dabbles in technology as a hobby. He’s a professional who primarily works close to the metal—meaning he works with server-side technologies, security, complex systems, and Internet of Things (IoT). > > I’ve also been in technology, for over 25 years. I’ve known the Paglianos in the tech world. You might find a rare one who would love to be in the center of this manufactured fooflah, and who would enjoy participating in the mockery which is discovery in the Judicial Watch’s lawsuit. For the most part, though, these are not the type of people who are willing to have anything to do with any of this. They would be suspicious of the efforts, of the questions, and of the people. So there, your expert in IT. He’s not talking, but unless you happen to be a right wing shill (or a supposed progressive with a Bernie boner), his work speaks for itself. Stop trying to make Hillary’s email server a thing. It’s not a thing. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/379 "2016-06-21T00:53:33Z")
I should add, if anyone does have some description by an IT expert of why her server might have been more secure than the servers at State, I’d genuinely appreciate reading it. My decidedly non-expert understanding of things is along these lines: Any server used by a lot more people is more vulnerable in a few ways. First, with more users comes the prospect of more phishing attacks. There’s simply more chance of a negligent employee clicking a bad link or being socially engineered. Second, the need to support more employees and functions might mean more attack surfaces. Third, it’s hard to hide the basic details about something like the State Department’s unclassified email servers. There’s tons of outgoing mail from them that’s easy to get a piece of and analyze; there’s a lot more traffic to snoop; many more people need the info to connect to it, etc. But arrayed against those potentialities are a couple of really important countervailing factors. One is that there is a team of full-time IT security professionals constantly monitoring the server logs, often in real time. It is much harder for someone to hack them without leaving some trace, in contrast to a server that is not being monitored by a human at all, much less a team of them working around the clock. That team also ensures that any potential vulnerabilities are both found and updated before they are exploited. Moreover, the whole system is behind sophisticated firewalls. That said, generally speaking, email is one of the hardest things to secure. And that’s because the server has to be connected to the internet, and also if the content is not encrypted, then it is easy to intercept in transit. That’s why Hillary was warned not to use her Blackberry for emails–not only could the device be fairly easily hacked, but the emails were not being encrypted using a non-deprecated method. The opinion that her home server might be more secure seems to rest on three naive and almost certainly false assumptions: (1) that the server was somehow anonymous; (2) that there would be evidence of hacking if it occurred; and that (3) the secure servers at the State Department are less competently managed than an amateur setup in the Clinton’s basement. The server was certainly not anonymous. As has been demonstrated since this story broke, anyone intent on hacking the Secretary could have discovered the IP address of the server easily. And there would not necessarily be any evidence of hacking. Even assuming all the server logs were kept from this period and someone has reviewed all of them, moderately sophisticated hackers are capable of not leaving any trace when the system isn’t monitored in real time (and that’s assuming they didn’t just intercept the emails in transit). Finally, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that the server had known major flaws that the servers at State would never have–including not being encrypted for months, a flaw so basic that it should cast doubt in the minds of any reasonable person about the technical skills of the person running it and their implementation of other basic security procedures after they figured out to turn on encryption. Again–I am a rank ignoramus on these issues. This is not my field of expertise. So I would love to be corrected on any of that, or to be pointed to a single IT expert who has reviewed the publicly known facts about her server security who thinks it was more secure than the classified channels she should have been using (or, frankly, even the unclassified ones). ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/380 "2016-06-21T00:57:25Z")
Pagliano is not an IT security professional. He is an IT specialist. There is a difference, which was amply demonstrated by his negligent setup of her server, a fact no one really disputes. Here is what the [resume](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Soghoian)of an IT security professional looks like. Would you like to know Mr. Soghoian’s view of the security of Secretary Clinton’s server? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514.md?page=20)