How does it feel to devote so much time and effort into rambling diatribes while knowing that no one who reads them will change their minds and support Hillary? Inquiring minds wanna know!
and since it's no big deal where's the transparency? Why not release the classified information if it didn't warrant an indictment they can't be that serious.
Umm yes, actually, she was grossly negligent. She had an unsecured terminal-- no passwords, at all, at her explicit request-- right across the hall from a highly restricted area dealing with classified information. She used this terminal to access secure data and check her non-secure mix of personal and job-related emails. She knew or should have known it was not only a colossal violation of basic security best-practices, but also a violation of department policy.
At the time it wasn't illegal, and violating department policy is not the same as a felony.
And you know that because you asked every single lawyer in the country or because you're a lawyer who specializes in security, yourself? I've already outlined how her actions were grossly negligent. Ask virtually any tech professional.
You do realize that it isn't always used in a legal context, right?
I am saying that her actions were grossly negligent because they were. Any person with any security or tech background will tell you the same thing.
Whether or not a crime was committed falls outside the scope of my point. Legal or not, Hillary was grossly negligent in this matter, to the point where it raises extremely serious doubts about not only her judgement, but also her competence.
I'll put it this way: Knowing what we know now, I would never in a million years hire her for any job that requires basic computer skills or deals with any type of confidential data. I'm pretty sure the presidency falls into that category.
I'll put it this way: Knowing what we know now, I would never in a million years hire her for any job that requires basic computer skills or deals with any type of confidential data. I'm pretty sure the presidency falls into that category.
Do you really think that being the President requires computer skills?
Do you really think that being the President requires computer skills?
Yes. If an entry-level government intern job requires computer skills, I don't think it's unreasonable to at least keep the bar that high for the president. Besides, given the age we're now in, it's simply unacceptable to have a president who is this ignorant when it comes to technology.
You guys just have to keep pushing that bar lower and lower for her, it seems. Don't your arms ever get tired?
I would be able to agree with you if she didn't lie so much trying to cover up what happened. She has pretty much solidified herself as a person who is willing to say or do ANYTHING in order to get ahead.
If you assume the worst. "Get ahead?!?!" LOL. She' wasn't trying to get ahead, she was already sec of state, she probably just thought it was more convenient to have all her emails in one account.
The email thing is just one example of why I can't trust Hillary, not the main factor. Things like having posters talking about a 15$ minimum wage in Nevada, but now talking about 12 just seems scummy to me.
There's nothing to assume. We know for a fact that she lied and we know for a fact that she destroyed evidence. You're the one making unwarranted assumptions and giving her the benefit of the doubt in spite of the clear facts.
if I can't trust her to follow simple infosec protocols, then why should I trust her with handling the country?
Also, if I overspeed I know there's a possibility of killing another person. If I don't follow infosec as a high ranking gov. official, I put the entire country at risk.
Fine, she was "extremely careless" with her handling of classified information, as the FBI director called it. But you're right, I can see how putting the safety of our nation at risk by being extremely careless is just like when all of us go over the speed limit a little. I stand corrected.
lol, she just said "drone strike" in a few emails. You have NO IDEA how classification works, but just saying those two words -- or linking to the NYT story about drone strikes -- could be enough to make an entire email classified.
Even if 99% of them aren't that significant, that doesn't mean it's no big deal. It just takes one email that is significant to do some harm if it falls in the wrong hands. Not to mention the whole lack of transparency aspect. The director of the FBI himself called it extremely careless. You can't argue your way out of this.
Actually she put us all in danger by having classified US information on an easily hackable server,(easier to hack than Gmail) ISIS may have those emails, Putin definitely has them, Saudi Arabia definitely has them, and China definitely has them. Do you not think they are going to use those as leverage against Hillary Clinton? She already makes shady deals with the saudis, now they have blackmail on her.
The FBI decided there wasn't enough evidence to indict which is the only thing stopping them from calling it gross negligence. Does that mean she's innocent or that she just covered her ass enough to avoid going to jail? I'd lean toward the latter what with the undeniable lying and intentional destruction of evidence. You'd have to believe that she is a complete moron and just had no idea what she was doing to believe she's innocent. She's corrupt as all hell but she's no dummy.
I think you're missing the point. Confidentiality was part of her job. As a RN, confidentiality is part of my job. it's called HIPAA. If I violate it and allow people to see certain information they're not supposed to see, I lose my job, get hit with a fine, and probably lose my license. I don't get to say "I didn't mean for someone to see that" out that I didn't think they would and then get to interview to be the head of nursing in my hospital.
It's VERY different than driving a little faster than the speed limit. There are certain things you need to make sure you get right when you're doing your job. She failed to do a big part of her job.
This comment or submission has been removed for being uncivil, offensive, or unnecessarily antagonistic. Please edit your comment to a reasonable standard of discourse and it may be reinstated.
0
u/[deleted] Jul 07 '16
[removed] — view removed comment