Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Hillary Hates Taxes and other Hillaryous things


Recommended Posts

For FOIA purposes using a personal server and using a 3rd party service such as Gmail is pretty much a wash. In either case you are non-compliant. You are explicitly told not to use 3rd party emails for government business. Can't say using your own personally managed server um... ever came up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

From a link Poozy posted.

Quote

Her predecessors as secretary of state — Madeleine K. Albright, Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice — did speak with investigators.

Mr. Powell, in particular, did use personal email for government business, and his records were not properly stored by the State Department, the investigation found.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/25/hillary-clinton-failed-report-several-hacking-atte/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway like I have said, the email thing and the benghazi thing are stupid.

If you want to point out shady shit, focus on the donations to her charity.

If she were running against anyone other than Donald Trump, even psychotic delusional whack job Ben Carson I wouldn't be defending her.

Another article posted earlier this week or last week, maybe even by you, AFL noted that the State Departments investigation found that even today it is still happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Funny how you left how the next paragraph:

"The inspector general, however, rejected that explanation, noting that at the time email was new, policies were “very fluid” and the department wasn’t aware of cybersecurity risks in the early part of the Bush administration. By the time Mrs. Clinton took office in 2009, those policies had been firmed up — and they preached exactly against Mrs. Clinton’s practice."

 

On top of that, Powell didn't have a personal server, Clinton did. Big difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Make Angels Great Again said:

 

Funny how you left how the next paragraph:

"The inspector general, however, rejected that explanation, noting that at the time email was new, policies were “very fluid” and the department wasn’t aware of cybersecurity risks in the early part of the Bush administration. By the time Mrs. Clinton took office in 2009, those policies had been firmed up — and they preached exactly against Mrs. Clinton’s practice."

 

On top of that, Powell didn't have a personal server, Clinton did. Big difference.

 

Using Gmail's servers for government business is better?

All it is stating is that saying everyone else did it is not an excuse to do it yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Make Angels Great Again said:

Seriously?

Who do you think is better at InfoSec? Clinton's people or Google?

Well seeing as Google reads everyone's emails I guess it just depends on who you'd rather be reading it. But yeah in a legal sense they are equally as bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not excusing Powell, if he is going to conduct government business over e-mail it damn well better comply with government standards. If it is found that he mishandled classified data then by all means prosecute him. The difference is it's a little bit easier on Clinton since it was more recent had she had a server full of data sitting at her house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is, anyone who maintains the servers for any mail email service could easily read the emails while if you use your own it is only anyone that hacks it.

You don't think the Clintons hired someone to secure the servers?  You think Hillary is some pro IT person setting up email servers in her free time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter, she broke protocol.

The government and people like Google have huge teams of people where they do NOTHING but make sure things are so far beyond secure it's ridiculous.

Whoever the hell Clinton hired or didn't hire, I guarantee you their practices are not more secure than the united states government or google. She's a fucking moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On May 27, 2016 at 11:52 PM, arch stanton said:

On the other hand, the level of humanity in how we treat other humans and what is considered acceptable is much higher than ever before. 

i agree that we do more humanitarian deeds today as a country, but on a personal level i think we treat others worse, a lot worse. look at all the school shootings, the increasing gun violence, the gang violence that never goes away, road rage, and so on. i think it's gotten a lot worse in several areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

I'm not excusing Powell, if he is going to conduct government business over e-mail it damn well better comply with government standards. If it is found that he mishandled classified data then by all means prosecute him. The difference is it's a little bit easier on Clinton since it was more recent had she had a server full of data sitting at her house.

Powell was the chairman of the joint chiefs. He'd had a little comsec training. As was pointed out, nobody handles classified business over email even if they have a supposedly secure server. The gist of insisting on using the government servers is for archiving purposes. If any of them have committed a heinous offense here it's that and not giving up secrets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

I don't see how anyone can say that no high level government official attaches or even speaks of any classified information through e-mail. How the heck would any of us know? We just think so?

Ignoring the occasional accident, no they don't.  It is blatantly against every rule imaginable and if you were trying to be malicious it's the surest way to be caught. Might as well try to walk out with a huge box labeled national secrets. Honestly you'd have a better chance with the box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/02/hillary-clinton-exchanged-cia-officers-names-private-server/

EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton Posted Names of Hidden Intelligence Officials On Her Email

“That’s what it suggests,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told Breitbart News, referring to the indication that Clinton disclosed the names of CIA-protected intelligence sources, based on the B3 redactions.

The CIA justifies “(b)(3)” redactions with this description: “(b)(3) Applies to the Director’s statutory obligations to protect from disclosure intelligence sources and methods, as well as the organization, functions, names, official titles, salaries, or numbers of personnel employed by the Agency, in accord with the National Security Act of 1947 and the CIA Act of 1949, respectively.”

Here are some examples of (b)(3) redactions;

  • Naming the guest in her office
  • Petraeus’ chief of staff
  • Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
  • “Iran Insights”
  • Naming someone at the ‘Pre-Brief’
  • ‘See Traffic’
  • The departing diplomat
  • The Taliban
  • Hill testimony
  • CC’s

@nate care to comment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...