5 ms·

> ...faulty alternative email service... Do you have a source for this? It was my impression that nothing was out of the ordinary about her email server, and t

> ...faulty alternative email service... Do you have a source for this? It was my impression that nothing was out of the ordinary about her email server, and the rules around it were vague.

MrZongle2 10y ago
Well, here's one for starters: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7006105d422740f0b4b8675c90f9a154/emails-key-security-features-disabled-clintons-server http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7006105d422740f0b4b8675c90f9a... Edit: here's a second: http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/clinton-e-mail-scandal-state-dept-disabled-its-own-security-systems-to-accommodate-hillary/ http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/clinton-e-mail-... I was under the impression that the rules around it were not vague, but as Secretary of State she was essentially given an exemption (or people chose to look the other way) because nobody wanted to rock the boat. The issue of classified email (whether marked or not) on the server is another one entirely. And the rules are crystal clear in that regard.
- thecolorblue 10y ago
  Thank you for the links. I am, admittedly, not well informed.
ccvannorman 10y ago
How did you get that impression? (This is why democracy is hard) Here is a well sourced and concise explanation of why Hillary's actions around email were unforgivable. [1] [1] https://medium.com/soapbox-dc/12-red-flags-in-clintons-email-setup-da8966760f7d#.94r4tu4dq https://medium.com/soapbox-dc/12-red-flags-in-clintons-email...
- tremon 10y ago
  Nothing in that article says anything positive or negative about the email server's setup or configuration. What value does it have in answering the GP's question about why the server was "faulty"?
iLoch 10y ago
No source needed. She used a non-government issued email server running out of her home. The server wasn't official and didn't meet the standard security requirements of the government. Top Secret and Classified information was taken and stored on a private server. That right there is illegal, there's no two ways about it. She should be indicted.
Spooky23 10y ago
Do some Googling. Anyone who isn't Hillary Clinton would be in prison right now for doing what she did.
- drabiega 10y ago
  I'm not a particularly big fan of Hilary, but as far as I'm aware, this used to be pretty common among members of congress and senators, so you might have to broaden your criteria a bit.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    I actually like Hillary, and think she'll be a good president. But she pretty obviously committed a felony.
- kaitai 10y ago
  Like Colin Powell?
  - MrZongle2 10y ago
    I agree with the parent poster: anyone. I held a clearance for 20 years. If I (or anybody else who wasn't well-connected) had pulled this stunt, I'd be in prison right now. And I would have likely been detained in a cell until trial. This was made abundantly clear in the annual security refresher training and briefings that all cleared personnel undergo, in addition to the original ones you receive upon being cleared. I say this not to specifically knock Clinton. Whether it was Powell, Petraeus, Clinton or any other individual: the law is unjust if not applied equally to all. There have always been people in power who have skirted the law, but it is especially galling that these days those individuals don't seem particularly concerned about hiding that fact, and their supporters can so casually excuse it.
    - kaitai 10y ago
      I understand the sentiment, I just don't understand the facts. People keep saying "if anyone but Clinton did this they'd be in prison", but there's a bunch of people who used private servers and had email reclassified and they're not in prison. Karl Rove used RNC servers, although it sounds like the email was all archived with the White House; that doesn't seem to address the initial security concerns though. Forgive me for being dense, I just really don't understand how the first statement (these actions would put anyone else in jail) can be true with the number of counterexamples (people who did similar things, aren't in jail, aren't Clinton). I'm a mathematician. I'm stuck. So is it about being well-connected, as MrZongle2's most proximate comment says, or is it about being Clinton?

> ...faulty alternative email service... Do you have a source for this? It was my impression that nothing was out of the ordinary about her email server, and the rules around it were vague.

MrZongle2 10y ago

Well, here's one for starters: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7006105d422740f0b4b8675c90f9a154/emails-key-security-features-disabled-clintons-server http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7006105d422740f0b4b8675c90f9a... Edit: here's a second: http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/clinton-e-mail-scandal-state-dept-disabled-its-own-security-systems-to-accommodate-hillary/ http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/clinton-e-mail-... I was under the impression that the rules around it were not vague, but as Secretary of State she was essentially given an exemption (or people chose to look the other way) because nobody wanted to rock the boat. The issue of classified email (whether marked or not) on the server is another one entirely. And the rules are crystal clear in that regard.

thecolorblue 10y ago
Thank you for the links. I am, admittedly, not well informed.

ccvannorman 10y ago

How did you get that impression? (This is why democracy is hard) Here is a well sourced and concise explanation of why Hillary's actions around email were unforgivable. [1] [1] https://medium.com/soapbox-dc/12-red-flags-in-clintons-email-setup-da8966760f7d#.94r4tu4dq https://medium.com/soapbox-dc/12-red-flags-in-clintons-email...

tremon 10y ago
Nothing in that article says anything positive or negative about the email server's setup or configuration. What value does it have in answering the GP's question about why the server was "faulty"?

iLoch 10y ago

No source needed. She used a non-government issued email server running out of her home. The server wasn't official and didn't meet the standard security requirements of the government. Top Secret and Classified information was taken and stored on a private server. That right there is illegal, there's no two ways about it. She should be indicted.

Spooky23 10y ago

Do some Googling. Anyone who isn't Hillary Clinton would be in prison right now for doing what she did.

drabiega 10y ago
I'm not a particularly big fan of Hilary, but as far as I'm aware, this used to be pretty common among members of congress and senators, so you might have to broaden your criteria a bit.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  I actually like Hillary, and think she'll be a good president. But she pretty obviously committed a felony.
kaitai 10y ago
Like Colin Powell?
- MrZongle2 10y ago
  I agree with the parent poster: anyone. I held a clearance for 20 years. If I (or anybody else who wasn't well-connected) had pulled this stunt, I'd be in prison right now. And I would have likely been detained in a cell until trial. This was made abundantly clear in the annual security refresher training and briefings that all cleared personnel undergo, in addition to the original ones you receive upon being cleared. I say this not to specifically knock Clinton. Whether it was Powell, Petraeus, Clinton or any other individual: the law is unjust if not applied equally to all. There have always been people in power who have skirted the law, but it is especially galling that these days those individuals don't seem particularly concerned about hiding that fact, and their supporters can so casually excuse it.
  - kaitai 10y ago
    I understand the sentiment, I just don't understand the facts. People keep saying "if anyone but Clinton did this they'd be in prison", but there's a bunch of people who used private servers and had email reclassified and they're not in prison. Karl Rove used RNC servers, although it sounds like the email was all archived with the White House; that doesn't seem to address the initial security concerns though. Forgive me for being dense, I just really don't understand how the first statement (these actions would put anyone else in jail) can be true with the number of counterexamples (people who did similar things, aren't in jail, aren't Clinton). I'm a mathematician. I'm stuck. So is it about being well-connected, as MrZongle2's most proximate comment says, or is it about being Clinton?