Posted on May 5, 2016
2
2
0
Remember that this is a "FOX News Exclusive" and so may have only minimal contact with reality.
On the other hand, if it is true, then the big flap is over nothing because this person is WELL able to recognize "things of interest" and would have been selling them around the world if there were any to be mined.
On the other hand, if it is true, then the big flap is over nothing because this person is WELL able to recognize "things of interest" and would have been selling them around the world if there were any to be mined.
Romanian hacker claims it was easy to infiltrate Clinton emails
Posted from nydailynews.com
Email
Hillary Clinton
Security
Politics
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
1
1
0
First of all the point of why this is important is not necessarily about what was on the server. The point is, Clinton claims everything is ok since the server was protected, despite the fact she broke the law by using a personal server primarily for her official government business. The reason why this law exists is to place the responsibility of oversight and security on the government. Her act of using the server for official business prevents the government from ensuring accountability and security is maintained. Regardless of what information Clinton stored on this server, the fact still remains that what she did was illegal. In the hopes to dismiss this issue as a major concern, Clinton is claiming no one who was not authorized to be there gained access to the server. Should this turn out to be false and once they confirm she did in fact transmit classified and sensitive information, her arguments blows up in her face.
Your suggestion that if Guccifer did penetrate the system, it only proves there was nothing important on it (since he never leaked anything) is not necessarily true. First, he may not have had time to search through the huge amounts of information, and second, he may not have known what he found could be deemed important. We've already been made aware that there was indeed plenty of sensitive and classified information found on the server. Unless you have a timeline outlining when he broke in, how much time he had to sort through the data, and when he was actually captured, you can't know for sure what he would have done or not done.
Your suggestion that if Guccifer did penetrate the system, it only proves there was nothing important on it (since he never leaked anything) is not necessarily true. First, he may not have had time to search through the huge amounts of information, and second, he may not have known what he found could be deemed important. We've already been made aware that there was indeed plenty of sensitive and classified information found on the server. Unless you have a timeline outlining when he broke in, how much time he had to sort through the data, and when he was actually captured, you can't know for sure what he would have done or not done.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin - Major; You have a point about volume. Ms. Clinton was Secretary of State from Jan 09 to Dec 12 so that means that there were four years worth of eMails to sort through in the period between Jan 09 and Jan 16. A good spider would likely have eliminated AT LEAST 99% of them and it's pretty difficult to receive/read/reply to much more than 200 eMails per day so that leaves around 2,922 eMails that would require "personal handling". There is, obviously, no way that anyone could possibly have gone through 2,922 eMails in eight years since that would mean that they would have had to give an average of ONE eMail a day "personal handling".
As to your first point, it IS NOT illegal to use a personal computer for government business. It IS however an action subject to penalty if you have AGREED not to do so and then do it. Part of the "problem" with indicting Ms. Clinton is that it appears that - through an administrative oversight - she never did agree not to use a personal computer for government business.
The second problem is that - even though some of the documents which were on Ms. Clinton's computer are NOW "classified" they were not "classified" when they ended up on Ms. Clinton's computer. (You can't change the rules to make something that was legal then illegal now and then retroactively prosecute.)
Whether Ms. Clinton "should have known" that some of the documents on her computer "should have been classified but weren't" is irrelevant.
All that being said, I think that it was incredibly sloppy work and the legal advice that Ms. Clinton received that told her that it was "not illegal so go ahead and do it" was about as sound as the "legal opinion" that President GW Bush received to the effect that "If we don't call it "torture" then it isn't "torture" so let's call it 'enhanced interrogation' and we can do whatever we feel like doing.".
As to your first point, it IS NOT illegal to use a personal computer for government business. It IS however an action subject to penalty if you have AGREED not to do so and then do it. Part of the "problem" with indicting Ms. Clinton is that it appears that - through an administrative oversight - she never did agree not to use a personal computer for government business.
The second problem is that - even though some of the documents which were on Ms. Clinton's computer are NOW "classified" they were not "classified" when they ended up on Ms. Clinton's computer. (You can't change the rules to make something that was legal then illegal now and then retroactively prosecute.)
Whether Ms. Clinton "should have known" that some of the documents on her computer "should have been classified but weren't" is irrelevant.
All that being said, I think that it was incredibly sloppy work and the legal advice that Ms. Clinton received that told her that it was "not illegal so go ahead and do it" was about as sound as the "legal opinion" that President GW Bush received to the effect that "If we don't call it "torture" then it isn't "torture" so let's call it 'enhanced interrogation' and we can do whatever we feel like doing.".
(0)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
Volume is absolutely a factor as well as the timeline in which had had the access before he was caught. My first point is absolutely valid and it IS in fact illegal to use a personal server for the primary means to conduct government business. What the government has allowed is occasional business to be conducted as an alternate means when the government option is not available. This was not the case for Clinton, nor was the business conducted on the personal server occasional due to mission need (convenience by the way is expressively not considered a mission need). There was no oversight by the way either. It has already been released that her staff attempted to get the mother may I and were turned down. She also did in fact sign an NDA and an acceptable use statement required of all government personnel. Please do not suggest that from her MANY years in the US government she would not be aware of such rules.
You and I know there is no such thing as retroactively classified, especially when it comes to obvious products such as imagery. She also ordered her staff to remove headers too. You also know all too well that in getting a clearance, you are formally briefed what is deemed classified and high level leadership who hold classification authority such as the head of the State Dept are briefed even further of their products and the areas they will work with. This is not an irrelevant point and again I stress, you and I would go to jail if we attempted to do the same.
You can't possible blame this on bad legal advice. Her staff requested authorization to use alternate methods and were denied. As a head of a major department in the government, due diligence is also her responsibility. This is all clearly spelled out and she absolutely disregarded her obligations and legal responsibilities. Her attempts to destroy official records alone has a penalty of up to 5 years in prison, a hefty fine, and removal from current and future government employment. You might recall that from Records Management training within the military (which is also required for all federal employees too).
You and I know there is no such thing as retroactively classified, especially when it comes to obvious products such as imagery. She also ordered her staff to remove headers too. You also know all too well that in getting a clearance, you are formally briefed what is deemed classified and high level leadership who hold classification authority such as the head of the State Dept are briefed even further of their products and the areas they will work with. This is not an irrelevant point and again I stress, you and I would go to jail if we attempted to do the same.
You can't possible blame this on bad legal advice. Her staff requested authorization to use alternate methods and were denied. As a head of a major department in the government, due diligence is also her responsibility. This is all clearly spelled out and she absolutely disregarded her obligations and legal responsibilities. Her attempts to destroy official records alone has a penalty of up to 5 years in prison, a hefty fine, and removal from current and future government employment. You might recall that from Records Management training within the military (which is also required for all federal employees too).
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Just curious but the link provided is from the NEW YORK DAILY NEWS. How is this a fox news exclusive?
Owner, Mortimer Benjamin "Mort" Zuckerman is a Canadian-born American media proprietor, magazine editor, and investor. He is the co-founder, executive chairman and former CEO of Boston Properties, one of the largest real estate investment trusts in the United States. Zuckerman is also the owner and publisher of the NEW YORK DAILY NEWS AND OF U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, where he serves as editor-in-chief. He formerly owned The Atlantic and Fast Company. His personal net worth is estimated at $2.4 billion.
Owner, Mortimer Benjamin "Mort" Zuckerman is a Canadian-born American media proprietor, magazine editor, and investor. He is the co-founder, executive chairman and former CEO of Boston Properties, one of the largest real estate investment trusts in the United States. Zuckerman is also the owner and publisher of the NEW YORK DAILY NEWS AND OF U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, where he serves as editor-in-chief. He formerly owned The Atlantic and Fast Company. His personal net worth is estimated at $2.4 billion.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Cpl (Join to see) - Corporal; The INTERVIEW was a FOX News exclusive. Once FOX News released it, then it became the property of anyone who wanted to pay FOX News the normal fees.
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
Then you should have lead with the fox story. if a democrat leaning publication picks it up, they add validity to the article.
FYI... ALL news/commentary articles carry source and by line information. The article linked DOES NOT state it's from a fox news source, only the interview. The publication you linked provided it's own commentary and even linked back to an article it published on March 14th.
If they didn't agree with the article do you honestly think they would have PAID for the rights to run the story? Your bias is showing.
FYI... ALL news/commentary articles carry source and by line information. The article linked DOES NOT state it's from a fox news source, only the interview. The publication you linked provided it's own commentary and even linked back to an article it published on March 14th.
If they didn't agree with the article do you honestly think they would have PAID for the rights to run the story? Your bias is showing.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It's probably true. Especially if he was able to access an aide. I highly doubt too there was much attention given to links from staff
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google