Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Clinton Email Controversy
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 9 of 56 (792762)
10-14-2016 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
10-13-2016 11:08 AM


Percy writes:
quote:
Other former Secretaries of State have also used personal email addresses, but not to the extent of Clinton, and not with as serious lapses.
That is a judgement call (and for precisely the reason you point out next). Powell used AOL for his email services and classified information was shuttled through it. That's a public service over which the government has no control.
This is the entire reason for my current job: Military Units were using Yahoo Groups to have ways to share information among their members. When the Powers That Be (C) found out about this, they thought it was a great idea to have an online method of communication but the use of a public, commercial service was unacceptable: There is no control by the military for the security protocols, no way to retrieve the site should the admins for it go away and become unavailable (save by the graces of Yahoo), the information is stored who knows where and is being data-mined within an inch of its bits, there's advertising to the membership (which is also being data-mined), and if there is any breach in the security, the military has absolutely no control over the response. Yeah, the military could request Yahoo to delete all information, but there's no way to guarantee that.
Thus, they created their own system that they could control that provided the services that Yahoo was providing.
In short, Powell did the *worst* thing he could possibly do: He used a non-secure commercial service. This is a continuing problem. If you go onto Facebook right now, you can find OPSEC information ('OPerational SECurity"...things like troop deployments). Now, that Clinton decided to use email outside of the State Department (at Powell's direct urging that she do so) is a poor decision. But she did it in the right way: She used the secure server that was set up by the Secret Service when Bill retired. As such, it was under her direct control and if there were any trouble, she could manage it directly.
But that, of course, is the entire reason for the State Department's computer system: So that you don't have to roll your own.
Too, Powell deleted all of his emails after he left, turning over nothing. And to go back to Powell's direct suggestion to Clinton regarding the use of a private email, he directly stated that one of the reasons to do so was to avoid public records requirements.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 10-13-2016 11:08 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 33 of 56 (793463)
10-29-2016 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Percy
10-28-2016 4:09 PM


Re: Clinton Emails in the News Again
Leaving one to wonder:
Why hasn't the FBI mentioned anything about their investigations of Trump's teams ties to Russia in general and Putin in particular? Let's not pretend that they're not investigating that.
Why is it only Clinton that gets the FBI talking?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 10-28-2016 4:09 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 10-30-2016 8:39 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 52 of 56 (793989)
11-07-2016 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by RAZD
10-30-2016 8:28 AM


Re: Clinton Emails in the News Again
RAZD writes:
quote:
But they are about how the Clinton machine shook down donors to the foundation for the enrichment of the Clintons (Bill Inc).
Huh? You do know that there is no evidence of any wrongdoing of any kind regarding the Clinton Foundation, yes?
quote:
They demonstrate character flaws similar to what we see in Trump's use of his position (such as his "charity"), he was just more blatant about it.
First, as has been pointed out, you have no idea what the emails contain.
Second, again, there is no evidence of any wrongdoing of any kind regarding the Clinton Foundation. In fact, it is one of the highest rated charity organizations in the world. Charity Watch rates it higher than the Red Cross. It gives 88% of its money on actual services and spends only $3 for every $100 raised (meaning they only spend $3 to raise $100 compared to the Red Cross which spends $30 to raise $100).
You do realize that the Clinton Cash book was a complete screed, yes?
I realize that the cognitive dissonance you are feeling is distressing, but you need to get past this silly false equivalency.
Edited by Rrhain, : Better clarification on how spend/raise is meant.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 10-30-2016 8:28 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024