Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

Will Hillary Clinton be indicted for the private email server?

  • No

    Votes: 15 68.2%
  • Yes

    Votes: 7 31.8%

  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .
81 - 97 of 97 Posts

·
Cruise Control
'87 300TD/'90 300D/'94 Quattro/'89 Vanagon TDI/'01 EV Weekender VR6
Joined
·
52,233 Posts
I'm firmly convinced that satire should be taught in schools during the entire K-12 run.
 

·
Registered
'74 & '78 450 SEL
Joined
·
9,126 Posts
I'm firmly convinced that satire should be taught in schools during the entire K-12 run.

I agree.

Nevertheless, there will always be a portion who are incapable of understanding it, no matter how thoroughly spoon fed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,030 Posts
What If Vladimir Putin Has Hillary Clinton's Emails?






Paul Roderick Gregory


Despite a clear warning received almost three years ago, it has taken a heated presidential campaign and an FBI investigation to make us aware of the national security threat of Hillary Clinton’s unsecured state department e-mails. The Kremlin’s cyber warfare army has had ample opportunity to steal Clinton’s entire e-mail cache (including 31,830 “private” e-mails). Such hacking would likely have taken place before the Kremlin’s propaganda arm, RT (Russia Today), published Sidney Blumenthal’s e-mails to Clinton on March 20, 2013, presumably sending out alarms at that late date to Clinton to secure her private server.

The Clinton cache of e-mail correspondence in the hands of the Kremlin or other hostile intelligence agencies could represent one of America’s greatest intelligence disasters, giving Vladimir Putin the opportunity to determine the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election or, barring that, to cast a cloud over a Clinton presidency. The national security implications of Hillary Clinton’s cavalier approach to security far outweigh the legal consequences of her actions.

The timeline of the Clinton e-mail scandal raises eyebrows about the curious lack of interest in this story when it first broke:

In March 2013, the Romanian hacker “Guccifer” distributed four intercepted Blumenthal e-mails, relating to Libya and Benghazi, to news organizations and political figures throughout the world, but only RT published them. On their release by RT, I immediately posted excerpts and analysis, concluding that, “Unhappy with the overthrow of Kaddafi, Putin would want to emphasize the sinister role played by the CIA in Libya.” My article, which was picked up by Drudge Report, attracted more than a third of a million viewers who could see for themselves Clinton’s private e-mail address and the contents of Blumenthal’s Libya reports. The RT publication was greeted by almost total media silence.

On March 2, 2015, after two years of silence, the New York Times reported that Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, used a private e-mail account. Given the 2013 RT publication, the new news was that Clinton used her private email exclusively and did not have an official state department account. The Times wrote apologetically that “Mrs. Clinton is not the first government official—or first secretary of state—to use a personal e-mail account on which to conduct official business.” The Times thus provided Hillary Clinton’s “everyone did it” defense.



Piecemeal releases of e-mails, beginning on May 22, 2015, in response to congressional and freedom-of-information requests, continue to fuel the daily dripping of scandal. The Clinton team has attempted to divert the discussion to partisan politics and the technicalities of over-classification. Her assertion that no classified information passed through her private server does not hold water. Are we to believe that a secretary of state received or sent zero classified documents via e-mail during a three-year period? Despite an ongoing FBI investigation and a possible referral to the justice department, candidate Clinton continues to contend that the e-mail scandal is a concoction of her political enemies.

The national security risks of the Clinton e-mail scandal have taken an undeserved backseat. Putin’s Kremlin has one of the most sophisticated cyber warfare systems the world has ever seen. Kremlin cyber experts would surely have used the Guccifer e-mails to try to access Clinton’s e-mails on an account that apparently had no special security protections. A Kremlin penetration of Clinton’s private e-mail account would give it the world’s most complete record of her secretary of state correspondence including the almost 32,000 emails that the Clinton team deemed private and made unavailable.



Consider Vladimir Putin with a full inventory of Clinton e-mails. Putin’s KGB training was in running agents, most recruited by kompromat (compromising information) that he had gathered, meaning that he would immediately have understood the possibilities. Putin’s FSB and military security experts would be told to scour the load of e-mails for operational information, names, addresses and dates. As kompromat specialists, they would look for personal Clinton material ranging from embarrassing to compromising.

As a KGB agent who cut his teeth on kompromat, Putin would consider several options on how and when to use the Hillary file with maximum effect. If he preferred Hillary’s Republican opponent in the general election, he could release enough incriminating information (that could not be traced back to the Kremlin, of course) to scuttle her candidacy. For those who believe Putin would not dare interfere with a U.S. election, consider his strange flirtation with Donald Trump. Putin, however, may prefer Hillary to give him a sitting U.S. president on whom he has a big stack of kompromat. If Putin rules out blackmail, the Kremlin could selectively leak damaging information to U.S. allies and enemies that would weaken the United States’ hand in world affairs throughout a Clinton presidency.

Those who follow Kremlin propaganda understand that it is not necessary for Putin to have Clinton’s e-mails to cause serious damage to a Clinton presidency. All he needs is that many believe he has Hillary’s e-mails.

The Kremlin specializes in fabricating narratives (such as the U.S. intent to steal Siberia) that are false but may contain a small kernel of truth. Putin’s army of “information technologists” (propagandists) can release fabrications to its numerous clandestine sources throughout the world. Clinton might ignore or deny those narratives (which cannot be traced to the Kremlin), but the mere idea that Putin has her e-mails will lend the necessary credibility to the story. The Kremlin knows that repeated lies are eventually taken as truth, so that an unsourced narrative, repeated, will eventually become the “truth.” Who knows what Putin’s information technologists can cook up to blacken the presidency of Hillary Clinton?

Hillary Clinton has laughed off the e-mail scandal as partisan or petty legalism. I hope that she and the American public understand the threat to national security her e-mails have caused. The national security threat increases if she is elected president. I would hope that the Democrat Party, and candidate Clinton understand this and do what is right for the American people.


Forbes Welcome
 

·
Registered
'71 280se 3.5 cab
Joined
·
6,882 Posts
perhaps the whole us.gov should have used hillary's server-


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/10/us/office-of-personnel-management-hackers-got-data-of-millions.html?_r=0

Hacking of Government Computers Exposed 21.5 Million People
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS JULY 9, 2015


WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Thursday revealed that 21.5 million people were swept up in a colossal breach of government computer systems that was far more damaging than initially thought, resulting in the theft of a vast trove of personal information, including Social Security numbers and some fingerprints.

Every person given a government background check for the last 15 years was probably affected, the Office of Personnel Management said in announcing the results of a forensic investigation of the episode, whose existence was known but not its sweeping toll.

The agency said hackers stole “sensitive information,” including addresses, health and financial history, and other private details, from 19.7 million people who had been subjected to a government background check, as well as 1.8 million others, including their spouses and friends. The theft was separate from, but related to, a breach revealed last month that compromised the personnel data of 4.2 million federal employees, officials said.

Both attacks are believed to have originated in China, although senior administration officials on Thursday declined to pinpoint a perpetrator, except to say that they had indications that the same actor carried out the two hacks.

The breaches constitute what is apparently the largest cyberattack into the systems of the United States government, providing a frightening glimpse of the technological vulnerabilities of federal agencies that handle sensitive information. They also seemed certain to intensify debate in Washington over what the government must do to address its substantial weaknesses in cybersecurity, long the subject of dire warnings but seldom acted upon by agencies, Congress or the White House.

“This incident that we are talking about today is unfortunately not without precedent,” said Michael Daniel, the White House cybersecurity coordinator. “We have to raise our level of cybersecurity in both the private sector and the public sector.”

In a conference call to detail the grim findings and announce the agency’s response, Katherine Archuleta, the director of the Office of Personnel Management, said that she would not resign despite calls from members of Congress in both parties for her dismissal.

“I am committed to the work that I am doing at O.P.M.,” she said. “We are working very hard, not only at O.P.M. but across government, to ensure the cybersecurity of all our systems, and I will continue to do so.”

She announced new security measures that would be installed at the agency as well as free credit and identity theft monitoring for the victims of the breach, although she said there was “no information at this time to suggest any misuse or further dissemination of the information that was stolen from O.P.M.’s system.”

Even so, national security officials have acknowledged the seriousness of the intrusion. Before the scope was made public on Thursday, James B. Comey, Jr., the director of the F.B.I., called the breach “a very big deal,” noting that the information obtained included people’s addresses; details on their neighbors, friends and relatives; their travel destinations outside the United States; and any foreigners they had come into contact with.

“There is a treasure trove of information about everybody who has worked for, tried to work for or works for the United States government,” Mr. Comey said during a briefing. “Just imagine you are an intelligence service and you had that data, how it would be useful to you.”

Administration officials said it was the personnel office’s work to modernize its computer systems that first led it to detect the breach.

In April, the agency informed the Department of Homeland Security that it had found an intrusion, and the department went to work with the F.B.I. to learn more, said Andy Ozment, a top cybersecurity official at Homeland Security. That inquiry, he said, revealed that the intruder had broken into a network at the Interior Department that held a personnel office database, leading to the theft of records of 4.2 million current and former federal employees. It also found that there had been a computer intrusion at the personnel office itself, leading to the much larger trove of background check records.

Mr. Ozment said the hacker in both cases gained access to the computer systems “via a compromised credential of a contractor.”

The debacle has touched off a scramble by federal officials to bolster the security of their networks. Tony Scott, the government’s chief information officer, said every agency was racing to make improvements, including the use of basic tools like two-factor authentication that requires anyone with the password to a system to use a second, one-time password to log in from an unrecognized computer.

“This is important work across all of the agencies of the federal government to make sure that we greatly enhance the cybersecurity profile of the U.S. government as a whole,” Mr. Scott said.

But that effort comes after almost two decades of warnings from government auditors and other internal investigations into the vulnerabilities in federal agency networks. “There’s still much that agencies need to do that they are not doing to protect their systems,” said Gregory C. Wilshusen, the director of information security issues at the Government Accountability Office, which has conducted cyber audits for almost two decades.

Warnings from auditors about serious vulnerabilities are often ignored by agency officials, he added. “That’s been a recurring theme. They believe they’ve taken corrective actions, but when one goes back to check, we find that they haven’t.”

The revelations quickly prompted calls for the ouster of Ms. Archuleta, whose agency had been warned in a series of reports since 2007 about the many vulnerabilities on its antiquated computer systems.

Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah and the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Ms. Archuleta and her top technology official should resign or be removed.

“Their negligence has now put the personal and sensitive information of 21.5 million Americans into the hands of our adversaries,” Mr. Chaffetz said. “Such incompetence is inexcusable.”

The criticism was bipartisan. Senator Mark W. Warner, Democrat of Virginia, also called on Ms. Archuleta to step down.

“The technological and security failures at the Office of Personnel Management predate this director’s term, but Director Archuleta’s slow and uneven response has not inspired confidence that she is the right person to manage OPM through this crisis,” Mr. Warner said in a statement.

That attackers were able to compromise the agency using a contractor’s credentials is unacceptable, security experts say, given the wide availability of two-factor authentication tools, which have become standard practice, particularly since a cyberattack at Target nearly two years ago, when hackers managed to break into the retailer’s system using the credentials of a heating and cooling contractor.

“A second offense is more unacceptable than the first,” said Suni Munshani, the chief executive of Protegrity, a data security company. “The O.P.M. and government agencies need to get their act together and better protect the information of their employees and citizens.”

Michael D. Shear and Michael S. Schmidt contributed reporting from Washington, and Nicole Perlroth from San Francisco.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62,170 Posts
This is how we ended up with Trump...



Hillary Clinton's Emails Were Always a Nothingburger. The State Department Just Finally Caught Up.


The nine-page unclassified report, completed last month and shared with Congress this week, appears to bookend a controversy that dogged Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign against Donald J. Trump. Mrs. Clinton blamed the F.B.I.’s handling of the inquiry for crippling her campaign after James B. Comey, then the bureau’s director, reopened his investigation into the server days before the general election after initially declining to bring charges. “While there were some instances of classified information being inappropriately introduced into an unclassified system in furtherance of expedience,” the report said, “by and large, the individuals interviewed were aware of security policies and did their best to implement them in their operations.”


 

·
Registered
2008 AMG CLK63 Conv., 2012 R350 4-Matic, Wife's 2015 C300 sedan
Joined
·
9,201 Posts
No. No point. Next...
 

·
Registered
Vogon constructor fleet.
Joined
·
9,195 Posts
Honestly, considering everything else that's happened since 2016, Hillary's email server seems like a part of a much more innocent time. I'd give anything to get back to a point where that was the biggest thing we had to concern ourselves with.

Even Bill's "blowjob" BS seems decidedly lighthearted right about now.
 

·
Registered
2008 AMG CLK63 Conv., 2012 R350 4-Matic, Wife's 2015 C300 sedan
Joined
·
9,201 Posts
^ The saying "Clinto f*cked an intern, [insert name of incumbent] f*cked the entire nation", springs to mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,461 Posts
This is how we ended up with Trump...



Hillary Clinton's Emails Were Always a Nothingburger. The State Department Just Finally Caught Up.


The nine-page unclassified report, completed last month and shared with Congress this week, appears to bookend a controversy that dogged Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign against Donald J. Trump. Mrs. Clinton blamed the F.B.I.’s handling of the inquiry for crippling her campaign after James B. Comey, then the bureau’s director, reopened his investigation into the server days before the general election after initially declining to bring charges. “While there were some instances of classified information being inappropriately introduced into an unclassified system in furtherance of expedience,” the report said, “by and large, the individuals interviewed were aware of security policies and did their best to implement them in their operations.”



I said early on the so called "liberal media" were so afraid of being accused of being the "liberal media" they let the right-wing media lead them by their nose to achieve the right-wing media goal.

Yep, the people who bought into the propaganda sure showed Sec. Clinton now didn't they?

LOL
 
81 - 97 of 97 Posts
Top