Same here. I'm not worrying, just gobsmacked that she believed this was a good idea and wouldn't get called to account. Especially when the media has to take the mantle of primary challenger. It's just a ridiculous side-show and another Clinton self-inflicted error. So so so stupid.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
Same here. I'm not worrying, just gobsmacked that she believed this was a good idea and wouldn't get called to account. Especially when the media has to take the mantle of primary challenger. It's just a ridiculous side-show and another Clinton self-inflicted error. So so so stupid.
How many of you guys have worked in IT? Because people like Hillary and Jeb don't actually make thoughtful decisions on whether or not to use a private email server, or have even a scrap of knowledge about network security issues. They hire people to handle that shit for them, and stuff like private servers and using one email address for everything happens because they just don't want to be bothered with extra shit to do on their gadgets and tell their IT people to make it easier for them.
I'm also not sure why the whole, "what was she thinking?" thing is starting to get normalized in here of all places, since it has been pointed out many times already that this shit was pretty common practice up to when they changed the rules AFTER her tenure.
The ugly, disgusting, corrupt truth? Hillary was like, "Two email addresses? John, can you fix it so I only have to check one? thx."
I'm honestly more appalled at how un-savvy techy people are being about how un-tech-savvy other people are than I am about the un-tech-savvy-ness. Does nobody have a mother or grandmother with a computer anymore? Complaining about "competence" here is like not trusting your doctor because he doesn't know how to query an SQL table. It's not their fucking specialty.
This was standard practice for years. Literally.
Meanwhile Bush actually did something incredibly, stupid and wrong with email - and it sinks without a trace.
You can see why the clintons feel the media is against the sometimes... (Didn't someone link that reporter at the Washington times who apparently is a full time Clinton email guy? Pushed it more than any other story over the last few months, constantly making it sound far worse than it actually is, and generally doing the work of a full time republican PR consultant).
Really?
Coriolanus
Banned
Hey, first libertarian teacher. "The goal of free markets is to increase consumer rights, as you well know" followed by "subsidies always harm the economy". Phd with 2 masters and 2 docs. Hrm.
Nah.
Nah.
Can proudly say that i've never used a belt that required tying.
BertramCooper
Banned
In news that everyone cares about, it appears that yes, CJ Pearson lied about the POTUS Twitter account blocking him.
Poodlestrike
Banned
#hotgaydoritos
http://www.mediaite.com/online/huckabee-targets-doritos-over-lgbt-friendly-chips/
#boycottdoritos
Ohmygodthey'resofluffysqueeeeeeee
Didn't realize the kid has s history of this - he previously sent a fake racist tweet to himself.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
As somebody who is responsible for IT support for some very rich and powerful people: this, a million times. Add to it not just the Grandmother factor, but the mindset that even a tiny amount of time spent on this is wasted and way below them, and they believe have better things to do.
I can completely understand why the GOP is holding onto this email thing for dear life. Their party is pretty divided. They're burned bridges with key demographic groups, and will continue to do so until the end of the primary season. The issues landscape can be a minefield - especially with a remarkably intransigent base that's going to lock their candidate into an ideological straitjacket, limiting the pivoting that he can do for the general election. Numbers-wise, it'd be one thing if they could afford a small portion of their base sitting at home, but they're quickly approaching the point where they can't.
If I knew that the odds were against me in such a manner? I'd be throwing the kitchen sink at my opponent, too, hoping to make it a referendum on her email. Deep down, they know that without this kind of thing - if they're stuck debating her on actual issues (crazy concept, I know) - their chances are shite.
If I knew that the odds were against me in such a manner? I'd be throwing the kitchen sink at my opponent, too, hoping to make it a referendum on her email. Deep down, they know that without this kind of thing - if they're stuck debating her on actual issues (crazy concept, I know) - their chances are shite.
brainchild
Banned
My thoughts nearly word for word. I couldn't give a shit about her exchanging work related e-mails on a private server if the activity was pre-approved by the government and had nothing to do with a breach of national security. It seemed like a joke of a scandal to me.
However, the overconfidence she displayed in turning everything over, only for that to turn out to be a complete lie, shows that she needs to get her shit together.
Why do e-mail exchanges on a private server during her tenure exist before she said they did? Does she not realize how serious it is to claim to have fully cooperated and not actually have done so? In the event that she didn't know about this, how is that possible?
This kind of incompetence regarding protocol compliance absolutely warrants criticism and public scrutiny, because as a candidate running for POTUS, she needs to understand that protocol compliance is an inflexibly necessary requirement for any governmental official, especially so for the leader of this country.
Ultimately, this probably won't affect her much, but I'm certainly disappointed in her behavior on this matter. All of this could have been avoided if she wasn't so concerned about the convenience of communication regarding her work. I mean, she was a government official for god's sake! It's a foregone conclusion that you'll have to sacrifice a little convenience when you hold such a position.
Lucky Forward
Member
RustyNails
Member
Could this whole debacle been avoided if she used VPN? I am just not seeing the need for a private server at all.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Who didn't see this coming. There's something really ugly about how black conservatives are used by the right wing. Trotting out black people to deny the existence of racism (outside of race card racism from liberals, of course) or reaffirm racially ugly views that white conservatives hold is pathetic but has been standard during the Obama years. There is no room for a JC Watts type black republican today, IE a somewhat moderate person who is simply a conservative. Instead you're required to make ugly comments on "black culture" or explain why LBJ did more damage to blacks than slavery.
brainchild
Banned
I'm an IT consultant and I can say that my job has nothing to do with being able to understand the problem with this.
That it was a common practice does not absolve Hillary of responsibility, nor does it make such a practice prudent in the first place. She elected this option, it wasn't the default option. If a bunch of people elect this option, it doesn't magically make it a good practice.
Anyway, the current news is not even about her deciding to use the private server, it's about the fact that there are relevant emails that she didn't turn over when she said that she did.
This is not about being tech-savvy, it's about having the competence to comply with protocol. 'Grandma Hillary' has no trouble understanding how to comply with security clearances, communication of classified information, retrieval and dissemination of classified documents, etc., all of which require a fairly moderate level of technical competence and are far more complicated in practice than retrieving some damn emails from the oldest known date of their use.
I didn't care much about this whole email bullshit until this point, but the latest news is not something that can be waved away with a bunch off 'senior citizen' rhetoric.
The fact she even had a private server implies there were people arranging stuff for her.
What is some non savvy person supposed to say when some tech advisor asks "Should I set up a private server or shall we run everything through VPN?"
Chances are she was even recommended to use a private server and just said "okay" because why wouldn't she, especially when such things were allowed.
In hindsight, it may seem like a bad decision but it probably was considered an innocuous decision at the time, and not necessarily even the wrong one given at this stage there doesn't even seem to have been any material issue caused by her using a private server.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
It's not senior citizen rhetoric for me, it's important people who can't be bothered.
Coriolanus
Banned
And now she's serving as an example of why one should bother, if one chooses to entertain dreams of ever getting a free house.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I don't know how good of a standard this is though. Like, who knows what tech issues there are currently that no-one is really thinking about but that might blow up in the next decade. Is the 2024 candidate going to have to deal with "and they carried important files around on a thumb drive"
brainchild
Banned
I don't believe that Hillary was that non-savvy.
Hillary has already acknowledged that she understood what the hell a private server was, considering that she knew not to exchange classified information on that server. There was a distinction in security protocol between servers of which she was very aware.
Also, it doesn't really matter. If being non-savvy amounts to you doing your job poorly or breaking protocol, then it is incompetence, regardless if you think it was justifiable.
In an age where our government uses technology that has an impact on classified information and national security, its employees need to be competent enough to know how to use the technology in a way that minimizes the risk of compromise as much as possible. If they are incapable of doing this, they do not need to be in office.
In year 2150, when the technology that the government uses will likely be very different from today, its employees have to adapt. This is no different from any other job that adopts new technology and has to re-train employees. Government officials should be no exception.
Coriolanus
Banned
Indeed. Such is the burden of being a target. Should come as no surprise to the candidate that is seen as the pragmatic choice.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
If I understand correctly, this latest flare up is:
1) The server was up longer than previously reported
2) There was an email chain with Petraeus not turned over, which was mostly but personal but had some work related stuff.
Is that correct? Because this still seems more like fishing than a smoking gun. I'm okay with fishing (FOIA and due diligence and all) but not with the interpretations that I'm hearing. Sounds about in line with the emails that were classified after they were on the server.
1) The server was up longer than previously reported
2) There was an email chain with Petraeus not turned over, which was mostly but personal but had some work related stuff.
Is that correct? Because this still seems more like fishing than a smoking gun. I'm okay with fishing (FOIA and due diligence and all) but not with the interpretations that I'm hearing. Sounds about in line with the emails that were classified after they were on the server.
brainchild
Banned
Exactly. Imagine 200-500 years from now. I believe the disparity between government tech and public tech will increase, for security purposes.
This is a great point.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I have fact checked myself, and wrong on a point:
When I first read this I mistook 'personnel' for 'personal.'
I am still hardly outraged, and since all these emails are being gone through, if this is the extent of it I'm still not bothered. If there's more substantial stuff, I'll change my mind.
When I first read this I mistook 'personnel' for 'personal.'
I am still hardly outraged, and since all these emails are being gone through, if this is the extent of it I'm still not bothered. If there's more substantial stuff, I'll change my mind.
brainchild
Banned
That's the jist of it, correct.
However, this doesn't even remotely compare to retroactively classified documents.
Hillary never said that the emails weren't retroactively classified. She DID say that she handed over EVERYTHING (to her knowledge) that was work-related.
Either she knowingly lied (why?) or unknowingly lied on a technicality, either way, displaying incompetence.
Fishing may be involved, but considering the context, it's absolutely warranted.
Wow, this whole thing is pretty dumb and gross. Nothing more than a tool to certain people based on what I read.:/
He is going to hate his old self when he gets older.
wow
Is there a source for this photo?
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
"Unknowingly lied" isn't really lying is it? And I don't expect her personal staff to be flawless and having worked in IT trying to piece together things that happened even a year ago, I can easily see how something may be overlooked, like a single email chain.
Looking at this from a tech perspective, I don't think they find that one chain and still have reams of email to go through. That's what they found. If they were still digging through the recovered emails, why would they release that bit of info? Political leak maybe, but I don't think the Justice Department has it in for Hilary specifically.
People up in arms about this seem to miss the obvious political angle, probably intentionally. There was no instance that led to this probe, no Bengazi, no accusation. The initial probe came up because she was called out for doing what was standard practice. Once that angle was tapped out, FOIA requests we're made to see if maybe she broke the rules somehow. Now that that is tapped out (the supposed 4 classified emails which weren't classified when they hit her server) we're looking for mistakes and inconsistencies. If that gets tapped out, people can always play the angle of how she reacted personally as some character flaw.
It's the equivalent of a nuisance audit by the IRS. Legal, but clearly politically motivated. Given the two decades that people have been trying to get dirt on her and comfy up empty, trying to smear her suggesting she had a friend killed, that she was responsible for an ambassador dying etc, I'm not all that surprised if she doesn't handle this all that gracefully.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
And I don't even like Hillary that much. Just the obvious distortion and political motivation, and people glomming onto it is just disgusting.
Lucky Forward
Member
BertramCooper
Banned
Hopefully.
In his defense, he's only 13, but he's nutty even for a 13-year-old.
I love how he's clearly modeled his speaking style after Ted Cruz. It's amusing, but creepy.
brainchild
Banned
I'm not unaware of the political angle. I absolutely agree that it is, and have already stated as much. However, now that we're at this point, it would be foolish to dismiss it.
Arguing that we would have never been criticizing her about this character flaw had she not have gotten 'caught' is not a good defense on her behalf. There's lots of things about the candidates that we should know but most likely don't, and if fishing ultimately results in the public being more informed about the candidates than we would have been otherwise, then I consider it a good thing.
Sure, these kinds of tactics normally lead to bullshit, but something legitimate has come out of it, so there's no use in pretending like it doesn't exist simply because the means to get to this point were ill-intended.
EDIT:
Also, unknowingly lying is still lying. It's certainly not the same as saying "I don't know" or even "I not very sure". The technical difficulty or ease of making a mistake when retrieving these emails doesn't change the claims that were actually made.
Thanks!
Jack Remington
Banned
Why would she believe she would be called to account (I feel gross using your words, because she did nothing wrong and thus there is nothing to account for)?
No one ever could have predicted that Republicans would waste taxpayer money investigating Benghazi a dozen times.
Again, she has nothing to account for.
Edit: no, brainchild, nothing legitimate has come out of it.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I'm not defending her character because I haven't seen anything particular in need of defending.
And what legitimate thing has come out of it? Like I said, this is a nuisance audit, and we've found the equivalent of a $50 deduction with a missing receipt.
What we've really found is that Hilary can be testy when asked to turn over all her email for bullshit political reasons. Damn straight, I would be too.
There's a re-occurring guest on the Sean Hannity show named "Juanita". I'm guessing she's lower income, or maybe even on public assistance? Anyway, Hannity sends her and her family on trips, or gives them gifts, and she comes on the show to proclaim how amazing Sean Hannity is, and how awful Obama is for black people.
cartoon_soldier
Member
How stupid was Clinton to use a private server for state department emails. Just terrible, imagine the difference in coverage today if they had just used normal government email like everybody else.
Well, it wasn't the rule back then.
Honestly, if it wasn't this it would be something else. The Democratic race needs spicing up somehow, if Biden were to jump in it would be the end of the e-mail thing. The race just needs some real drama and everyone will drop it.
About as stupid as Colin Powell.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-personal-email-secretary-of-state-115707
brainchild
Banned
Hillary's claim that she (and her team) have fully complied with government orders has unequivocally turned out to be a complete lie. This is legitimate information, and whether you think it's important or not is, quite frankly, irrelevant to the legitimacy of this information.
Jack Remington
Banned
I know Gotchaye has a very quick ban trigger, so I need to be a little careful here.
Some esteemed members of this thread are saying that the fact that a ten email thread wasn't included in what was turned over is somehow a serious matter.
It's irrelevant. 10 out of 60,000. Do you understand how minute that is? Most of the emails in the chain are supposedly "getting to know you" type emails. It would be easy to take one look at the chain and hit the delete button.
People really need to stop dignifying this farce.
Edit: to use Ignatz's analogy, this isn't even a $50 dinner with a missing receipt. This is a Starbucks coffee with a missing receipt. Or a pack of gum from 7/11 (never forget).
Some esteemed members of this thread are saying that the fact that a ten email thread wasn't included in what was turned over is somehow a serious matter.
It's irrelevant. 10 out of 60,000. Do you understand how minute that is? Most of the emails in the chain are supposedly "getting to know you" type emails. It would be easy to take one look at the chain and hit the delete button.
People really need to stop dignifying this farce.
Edit: to use Ignatz's analogy, this isn't even a $50 dinner with a missing receipt. This is a Starbucks coffee with a missing receipt. Or a pack of gum from 7/11 (never forget).
From what we've seen though, the chain was like 99.9% personal. Something like that would be super easy to miss. It seems more like trying to hang her on a technicality than anything else, like how when someone loses an argument all of a sudden they start diving into semantics.
Missing one e-mail chain is a mistake, if it was 100 then it would be a lie. This just feels nitpick-y to me.
This is their best, perhaps only, realistic means of stopping her. They're going to cling onto it for dear life.
brainchild
Banned
It's a lie either way, as well as not being fully compliant. It really does not matter how insignificant you believe this to be.
This is certainly not a semantical argument for the State Department.
My point was it was likely an honest mistake. The guys in-charge of going through the e-mails probably looked at the first 5 or 6 e-mails in the thread, saw it was all personal stuff and moved on.
I compared it to a semantic argument, not for the state department, but to House Republicans and other trying to tear her down over this latest issue. My point was that both are nitpick-y. If there was actual wrong doing they'd be harping on that and ignoring this.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked