Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
guyman
Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2015 - 10:08am PT
|
Madbolter.... good job of summing up things....+1
C'mon, have you really lost any sleep over her e-mails??? Why???
I don't loose sleep over any of this. But Crankster, even you, must wonder just what Putin thinks when he is reading all of Her emails... in real time.
Edit for dirt... the eMails also went to these people .... sort of like a Blind CC .....
Angela Merkel, Kim Jong-il's, Ali Khamenei, Narendra Modi, Shinzō Abe, General Buhari, Bashar al-Assad, Lee Wan-koo …. And more.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2015 - 10:12am PT
|
You guys greatly overestimate Putin.
Anyway, early on, W looked into his eyes and could tell he was an ok dude.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2015 - 10:21am PT
|
No one cares what is in her e-mails, they were all sent to somebody, so nothing has been destroyed.
Do you delete e-mails?
everyone does, why shouldn't Hillary?
Why?? because the Repubs want to make a smearing scandal out of the issue,
it's evil.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2015 - 10:31am PT
|
If you don't like Hillary, and she is the Democratic candidate, what are you going to do???
Vote for the independent?
Vote for the Green party?
Vote for the Fascists?
Not vote at all?
You could, and let the Repubs win.
or you can play the game that has been set up as part of our system of elections. The Game sucks I know, get over it, you have to play the game or shut the hell up, because the game is set in stone, and there are only 2 sides.
The game means YOU HAVE TO VOTE, Everyone has to Vote, and You Have to Vote for your party up and down the ticket if you want your party to have a majority.
No majority = no action by your party, they have to sit it out while the majority kicks their ass.
So it doesn't matter what you think of Hillary, you can hate everything about her, but if you want to fix this country, then you have to vote for her for the good of the future of this nation
The President isn't king, he/she is just a tool of the Party, nothing the President wants will get done without a Congress that agrees with doing what the President wants.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2015 - 10:42am PT
|
Bush ....seems to demonstrate that the rules/laws of the land don't really apply to...him.
Remember those kinds of statements? I do.
Goes to show you...it's always the other guy's Senator or POTUS that's the problem. Otherwise, it's all good.
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2015 - 11:01am PT
|
Why are you so hung up on Putin???...
i'm more hung on the pussy riot!
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2015 - 11:06am PT
|
And the frothing continues...
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2015 - 11:14am PT
|
What do you think of the word 'sheeple', Locker?
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2015 - 11:29am PT
|
That's what I thought you thought.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2015 - 12:25pm PT
|
When Romney ran, how he earned his millions was a hot topic, but somehow Hillebeast and Bill's millions and where it came from are not to be discussed.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2015 - 12:38pm PT
|
TGT's cartoon postings are kinda like a weather indicator for the GOP....the more he posts, the more you can be assured that they are scared silly about their own prospects.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2015 - 02:13pm PT
|
Romneycare is good when the white guy does it.
Romneycare is bad when the black guy does it.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2015 - 02:27pm PT
|
She should have known better - not like it was an unknown issue or without consequences for doing it. I have some sympathy here for politicians in general with regard to email as the rules really remove a lot of interpersonal aspects of 'governing' from government. It's similar to the situation where being an ambassador before the telegraph and radio was an interesting and prestigious post. Now ambassadors have no power and are micromanaged from afar on a hourly basis.
Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act.[1] Over 5 million emails may have been lost or deleted.[2][3] Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove lost emails, leading to damaging allegations.[4] In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been deleted.[5]
The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee,[6] for various communications of unknown content or purpose. The domain name is an acronym standing for "George W. Bush, 43rd" President of the United States. The server came public when it was discovered that J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy director of political affairs, was using a gwb43.com email address to discuss the firing of the U.S. attorney for Arkansas.[7] Communications by federal employees were also found on georgewbush.com (registered to "Bush-Cheney '04, Inc."[8]) and rnchq.org (registered to "Republican National Committee"[9]), but, unlike these two servers, gwb43.com has no Web server connected to it — it is used only for email.[10]
The "gwb43.com" domain name was publicized by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), who sent a letter to Oversight and Government Reform Committee committee chairman Henry A. Waxman requesting an investigation.[11] Waxman sent a formal warning to the RNC, advising them to retain copies of all emails sent by White House employees. According to Waxman, "in some instances, White House officials were using nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications."[12] The Republican National Committee claims to have erased the emails, supposedly making them unavailable for Congressional investigators.[13]
On April 12, 2007, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel stated that White House staffers were told to use RNC accounts to "err on the side of avoiding violations of the Hatch Act, but they should also retain that information so it can be reviewed for the Presidential Records Act," and that "some employees ... have communicated about official business on those political email accounts."[14] Stanzel also said that even though RNC policy since 2004 has been to retain all emails of White House staff with RNC accounts, the staffers had the ability to delete the email themselves.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2015 - 03:02pm PT
|
She said, "I installed my own private email server for the convenience of not having to carry around multiple devices."
In fact, the number of devices you carry around has no relation to how many email accounts you have or where they are hosted. And she then proceeded to carry around multiple devices anyway.
She said, "The email server was entirely secure and guarded by secret service agents around the clock."
In fact, that's not a "convenient" approach to having a private email account. In fact, getting her own free private email account from Gmail or Yahoo would have been OBVIOUSLY far more convenient! And then she could have just used the State Department email account that had already been made available to her for her business communications.
In fact, the security that matters is not something that can be guarded by the secret service. Physical server security is one small piece of overall security, and the more worrisome security issues are not physical. Because Hillary did nothing to allow oversight of her installation, it is impossible to know if she or her installer did the job right, so it is impossible to know if basic SSL/TLS was set up correctly or if her machine was hacked.
She said, "The server was never breached."
In fact, she has exactly zero idea whether that is true or not, and, more importantly, the American people have zero idea. Moreover, because of how she handled the whole thing, it is now impossible to ever know. The vast majority of hackers are not going to wave a sign around your site or email server telling you, "Ha, ha, ha! Got you!"
Was Hillary running any intrusion-detection system on her server? Which one? How was it configured? Ooops, sorry, no can tell. It was all intentionally wiped to explicitly disallow the American people to even ask such questions.
And the security of State Department communications, particularly from the Secretary of State, DOES matter.
The site: https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/ can be used to test SSL/TLS setup, and it is scary how many government sites are incorrectly set up to avoid even basic, well-known hacks. So it is actually doubtful that Hillary set up her email server correctly. I can speak from experience to say that it is not trivial to get it right and earn an A+ from ssllabs.
At this very moment, if you test irs.gov or www.irs.gov, you will see that the (extremely important) site cannot even be rated by ssllabs AT ALL because they have deployed an invalid certificate!
Three weeks ago, www.healthcare.gov (a fairly significant site with some fairly significant personal records) was at a C- and was vulnerable to some really basic hacks. As of today, they appear to have fixed things and are at an A+ (where they should have ALWAYS been from the inception). So, was healthcare.gov hacked during the months they were at a C-?
The BASIC failings of many government websites are EPIC. And we are to believe that Hillary got it right? Too bad she ensured that we can never check.
She says, "I and my team carefully examined the emails to determine which were State Department related and which were private."
In fact, a very simplistic keyword search algorithm was developed and run in one pass, searching for about 100 key words. Anything that wasn't "flagged" as having these keywords was called "private" and not handed over. However, repeated emails she sent to State Department people but did not turn over as State Department related have surfaced. These were missed by the simplistic algorithm because the keywords were misspelled in her actual emails.
And there are almost countless words that would be "key" to State business that the algorithm didn't even attempt to find. There was no systematic human eyes-on actual review of the emails. So, the American people are being told, unilaterally: "The determination of what was relevant to serving you was made 100% entirely by me, and then any possible oversight of that determination was wiped by me. And the errors we are already discovering in my process are 'unfortunate' but cannot be helped, because, well, I wiped all possibility of my process ever being vetted or double-checked."
She said (via repeated memos to her staff): "USE the supplied State Department email system. This ensures that a record is kept of your State Department communications. Use a private email system for your private emails so that you are not mixing State Department business with your private communications."
In fact, this is excellent policy. The Secretary of State SHOULD have followed her own mandate, and she did not for the obvious reason that she had NO interest in having ANYBODY... EVER... able to exercise the same oversight over her that she insisted be exercised over her staff.
She said, "It would be inappropriate to hand over the private server to a forensic team."
In fact, it is a VERY reasonable request to see if anything can be recovered from her irresponsible and unilateral actions. So FAR from "inappropriate," such a request would immediately be complied with by anybody who wasn't intentionally hiding relevant STATE business from the State itself! If she had ONLY private emails on that server, THEN the request would indeed be inappropriate. But SHE mixed State business with private communications, and so it is completely appropriate to see if anything STATE-related can be gotten from her wipe-job.
She said, "I did nothing illegal."
In fact, it's at least a gray area, and in fact, she violated her own well-conceived mandate to her staff. It's at least a gray area because her particular handling of the matter has indeed violated the clear spirit, as well as the obvious interpretation of the letter, of the freedom of information act. By unilaterally deciding what to release and what not to release, and then immediately wiping the entire server prior to review and any additional information requests, she took it entirely upon herself to decide what the American people could EVER review about her decisions and communications while she occupied arguably the second most powerful position in our government.
Most of you will not care about this. That's sad. If you have given up caring to have a government that is actually accountable to US and transparent in principle, then you really have punted at the most fundamental level.
We shrug and say, "All politicians are liars and cheats." But Hillary has in one fell swoop revealed that she is willing to go to ANY ridiculous lengths to not be held accountable. Obama claimed that he would give us the most transparent presidency we had seen in a long time. He did not. With Hillary, we can count on more of the same lack of transparency and lack of accountability. SHE, unlike Obama, wears it on her sleeve.
It is obvious to any reasonable mind that Hillary set up her own email system to circumvent oversight. She then further avoided oversight by unilaterally deciding what information to release and what to no release. She then further avoided oversight by not just deleting her emails but WIPING the entire server on which they had been stored.
Somebody upthread asked, "Have you ever deleted emails?"
That is a ridiculous question as a corollary to what Hillary did. The question would better be cast as: "Have you ever set up your own email server, run it for many years, collected tens of thousands of both public and private emails, and then (as soon as people started asking questions about it) intentionally WIPED the entire thing, including tens of thousands (ALL) of your private emails?"
I would venture to guess that not one single person on the entire Taco stand could answer "yes" to THAT question. Indeed, when faced with that sort of question, a reasonable person asks: "WHY in the world would you ever do such a thing? You collect tens of thousands of private communications spanning years and then suddenly just WIPE them ALL? Why?"
Transparency and honesty still matter, people, even if we are so jaded that we think we can't get it from our leaders anymore. But even if you have dropped the bar that low, is the bar really so low now that we elect as PRESIDENT a person who literally laughs up her sleeve at how she really got one over on all of us?
Make no mistake: I hate both parties. I'm no Rebumblecon. I even voted for Obama the first time. I could be persuaded to vote for a Demoncrat this go-round. But I would vote for virtually any warm body (except for the likes of Palin) opposing Hillary. Hillary wears her corruption on her sleeve and just expects Americans to be so jaded or stupid that they don't care. I do care, and I find her disgusting in the extreme. The email thing is just the latest example of her disdain for us.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2015 - 03:10pm PT
|
Does that mean you voted for Rmoney the second time?
Seriously?
|
|
guyman
Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2015 - 03:23pm PT
|
Madbolter.... you are on fire today.
And to app.... I to voted for the president the first time around, I had hi hopes that some things would change for the better... they didn't.... and yes Mitt got the nod the second time around.
I for one can't wait for her to get interviewed.... and speak off of the top of her head about some real issues, more than unequal pay....
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2015 - 03:26pm PT
|
The only GOP candidate who might have a chance of matching her will be Jebster. She'll eat the rest of them with ketchup.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2015 - 03:33pm PT
|
Does that mean you voted for Rmoney the second time?
No, I voted the Peace and Freedom party that time. Bwahahahah!
Seriously, though, no, I didn't vote for Rmoney. At some point the choices are so disgusting that I'll throw a vote away (yes, even knowing the possible implications) than to vote "the lesser of the evils." Sadly, sometimes there IS no "lesser". Give me SOMETHING to work with, you worthless parties!
"Let's see.... Satan or the Anti-Christ? Hmmm.... What to do? WHAT to do?"
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2015 - 03:38pm PT
|
Jen/Rubio v. Hillary/?
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2015 - 04:52pm PT
|
The only GOP candidate who might have a chance of matching her will be Jebster. She'll eat the rest of them with ketchup.
Riiight.
Like the way she devoured all comers in '08.
Hillary is clearly the favorite to win the 2016 Presidential race.
Was she any less of a favorite back in April '07?
I'm just sayin.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!