How is Hillary a crook?

COTUR1@43 said:
And you have yet to answer why and what for she issued an apology?
Click to expand...

Why would I, she said what she apologized for, welcome to politics. It was not a confession to a crime in case u r confused.
 
Tropodan said:
I asked this in another thread but didn't get an answer. Can any of you yankees tell me if it's true that Hilary voted for more military action than any other senator except John Maccain? I heard that somewhere.
Click to expand...

Why don't you look it up for yourself canuck? The internet is not that hard, you made it here, apparently.
 
KnightTemplar said:
She hasn't be convicted of anything, so by definition she isn't a crook. Yet.

She is a lying bitch with the morality and self-respect of a crack whore.
Click to expand...

TS is just trolling. Pretty obvious. OJ Simpson wasn't a murderer either, cause not convicted in court.
 
Octavian said:
The rest is history and now all we're hearing about is this e-mail server issue which is a joke since every Secretary of the State before Clinton has used at various times a personal, encrypted server and it was explicitly not against regulations. Clinton did not break the law since a law forbidding this wasn't made until 2014 after she had left the position... when opposition is pressed with this fact, they cry about "violating the spirit of conduct" and other loose trash. The violation in question is wiping the server, which everyone seems to be missing, except that last I checked, the e-mails have been preserved as they are now being intensely scoured over by GOP hit-squads.
Click to expand...

While some people before Clinton used personal e-mail account it doesn't mean that they used it for exchanging official e-mails potentially containing sensitive information.

Clinton not only did that, but she never used her government e-mail, relying solely on her private account.

It is a clear security risks, but even if someone wanted to play a card that she wasn't aware of that and it wasn't against the law, I'd point out that what was against the law is a lack of preservation of e-mails. Government-related e-mails are backed up and preserved for certain periods of time, while on her personal it probably wasn't set up and certainly wasn't assured. Also, in violation of this she went ahead and deleted certain e-mails.

The law that she allegedly broke perfectly existed before 2014, it was amended in 2014. Grounds for amendment is exactly because using personal e-mails for exchanging government potentially sensitive information is against best security practices, discouraged, should be authorized because of extraordinary circumstances or similar cases.

Why would she do that despite potentially breaking the law and softening security? Because, my friend, she wanted to be in control of information that could expose bad things about her. The same reason is why she wanted those e-mails to be deleted. The same reason is why she provided those that weren't in a form of 50 000 printed pages -- to make it harder and longer to review.

Refusing to see this as a bad thing and bad practice that puts whole country and its people in unnecessary and avoidable danger tells volumes about you.
 
KnightTemplar said:
She hasn't be convicted of anything, so by definition she isn't a crook. Yet.

She is a lying bitch with the morality and self-respect of a crack whore.
Click to expand...

Shall we go through the list of world leaders directly responsible for deaths of hundreds of thousands or millions?

But they're not actually guilty of murder, therefore can't be labeled as murderers, because they've not been put on trial.

Or, how about the honorable Hugo Chavez? The Socialist Dictator drove Venezuela's economy into the ground, and upon his death his discosed bank account balance was over $50 billion.

Not a crook. Never found guilty. He either earned $50 billion or it was given to him out of the service he performed to his country.
 
The mass denial of Clinton fans ITT is pretty hilarious. Anything short of video of her walking away in cuffs and thrown in a back of a cop car isn't 'good enough' for anyone here.
 
gespenst said:
While some people before Clinton used personal e-mail account it doesn't mean that they used it for exchanging official e-mails potentially containing sensitive information.

Clinton not only did that, but she never used her government e-mail, relying solely on her private account.

It is a clear security risks, but even if someone wanted to play a card that she wasn't aware of that and it wasn't against the law, I'd point out that what was against the law is a lack of preservation of e-mails. Government-related e-mails are backed up and preserved for certain periods of time, while on her personal it probably wasn't set up and certainly wasn't assured. Also, in violation of this she went ahead and deleted certain e-mails.

The law that she allegedly broke perfectly existed before 2014, it was amended in 2014. Grounds for amendment is exactly because using personal e-mails for exchanging government potentially sensitive information is against best security practices, discouraged, should be authorized because of extraordinary circumstances or similar cases.

Why would she do that despite potentially breaking the law and softening security? Because, my friend, she wanted to be in control of information that could expose bad things about her. The same reason is why she wanted those e-mails to be deleted. The same reason is why she provided those that weren't in a form of 50 000 printed pages -- to make it harder and longer to review.

Refusing to see this as a bad thing and bad practice that puts whole country and its people in unnecessary and avoidable danger tells volumes about you.
Click to expand...

That's for at least facing up to a few realities regarding when the law went into effect and in differentiating between a law, a regulation and bad practice. I think I would generally agree with you in my gut reaction - sure - seems like a bad idea, bad conduct..risky. And I don't want to sound overly cavalier but is there any evidence that her private server was actually less secure? Judging by the fact that the State Department didn't even have adequate encryption on its phones, I might question their entire tech setup... and I think it's also worth noting that this is all because she wanted to use a phone to converse over e-mail. This is commonplace for literally all companies at this point. When she was the Sec. of State, people in businesses everywhere were discussion highly sensitive information via Blackberries. Even if she did break an internal regulation, is this really that big of a deal or are many in the general public really looking hard for something on her to be upset about? People are acting like she's some treasonous turncoat when she was really doing very little different than her most recent predecessors. It's not like the State Dept. or anyone around her every really had a problem with it.
 
The problem with the whole email scandal is that she's being singled out... there are countless politicians that have used private email while in office, include many of the GOP candidates. I personally blame the CIA, as I don't expect a men and woman in their 60's to know a damn about internet security.
 
Octavian said:
And I don't want to sound overly cavalier but is there any evidence that her private server was actually less secure?
Click to expand...

This is big and it was less secure. From pure security standpoint, a few points.

First, even during these post-snowden days, majority of SMTP mail servers, provided that they want to talk to each other, do not verify digital certificates. They just accept whatever is presented and proceed with encrypting data using a public key from the presented certificate. This scheme isn't secure as it allows an easy setup for man-in-the-middle type of attack, which involves a third mail server that is introduced between the two of the sender and the receiver and poses itself as the receiver's mail server to the sender and as the sender's mail server to the receiver. In majority of cases, it involves cooperation from ISP or establishing control over ISP's equipment.

Exchanging e-mails between mailboxes of the same e-mail domain is secure as it doesn't involve sending data via untrusted channels. Of course, there are some other risks here, like rogue mail server admin, etc., but these risks are more or less easily mitigated and they are present in multiple mail servers scheme anyways.

Also, there's an issue with exchanging data between an e-mail server and an e-mail client. It is known that her server didn't have a digital certificate installed for a while after it was set up for encrypting client SMTP, POP3, IMAP and HTTP sessions and Hillary exchanged data between her e-mail client and the server in unencrypted form.

It is known that they had RDP services published to the Internet on this server for the ease of administration. Which means that they ran Windows. Did they patch it properly? Who knows. It was around 2011 when a major bug was discovered in MS RDP by Luigi Auriemma that allowed remote code execution type of exploits. And besides RDP is a popular target by itself, if you ever publish it unprotected by NLA -- script kiddies immediately start hammering in, trying different combinations of user/password. There would be hundreds of attempts per day. And they claim that there was no evidence of any malicious activity in the logs. Unlikely, but anyways, can someone authorized check this out? Nope.

It could be different (which I don't believe) in this case but it is usually so that the more important a mail server is the more protected it is. There are dedicated people who install security patches, configure it properly, etc. On average, an e-mail server at home is less protected than e-mail server at work.

But the most important issue here is creating a possibility for misuse like not backing up (not retaining) data properly, deleting data, etc, something that actually had happened. Which isn't uncommon for "the most transparent administration", BTW. It's more than often data gets lost, hard disks suddenly fail and queues are suddenly too long to respond in time. Now no matter how many FOIA request you send -- you won't get anything because she may have deleted something unrecoverably while the data should have been retained.
 
Handsomebwonderfull said:
So you have a problem with lawyers defending their clients? Lawyers don't care if they are innocent or not, that's not their job. Their job is to protect their client.

Welcome to grown up land!
Click to expand...
LOL, Clinton gets child rapist off and laughs, derp welcome to grown up land, derp.
 
Hillary Clinton's brother Tony Rodham had received $100,000s from Edgar and Vonna Gregory, a married couple that had been convicted of bank fraud. Bill Clinton pardoned the Gregory couple after Tony Rodham met personally with Bill Clinton and discussed the Gregory case with him.
 
Marc Rich was a very wealthy man who had given $100,000s to the Clinton Library and to Hillary Clinton's senatorial campaign. Rich was also an international fugitive on the FBI's top ten most wanted list. He was indicted on many charges, including trading with Iran during the hostage crisis. He fled to Switzerland to avoid prosecution.

Bill Clinton pardoned Rich on his last day in office.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,042
Messages
55,463,470
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top