State Department audit faults Clinton on email use

Here is an interesting comment from the report:

On January 9, 2011, the non-Departmental advisor to President Clinton who provided technical support to the Clinton email system notified the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations that he had to shut down the server because he believed “someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to.”

www.scribd.com...

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

yet


At least he had the integrity to speak to the IG

True, but he has not handed over the emails yet. So by your own definition, he has not fully-cooperated.

Do I need to refer back to your post giving us that definition?

oh and i posted the def for cooperation
your interpretation of any word has little meaning to me
you should look up integrity

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

yet


At least he had the integrity to speak to the IG

True, but he has not handed over the emails yet. So by your own definition, he has not fully-cooperated.

Do I need to refer back to your post giving us that definition?

oh and i posted the def for cooperation
your interpretation of any word has little meaning to me
you should look up integrity

Why make this personal? You still have not refuted my assertions about the emails. If you cannot do that, then our conversation is over.

Perhaps you are bit too emotional to discuss this logically.

a reply to: xuenchen

Is this the full report? I haven't opened / downloaded it yet because I'm assuming such a report would be FOUO / UNCLASSIFIED, and I would feel hesitant to download it if it wasn't officially released to the public yet.

Kind of ironic come to think of it LOL

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

yet


At least he had the integrity to speak to the IG

True, but he has not handed over the emails yet. So by your own definition, he has not fully-cooperated.

Do I need to refer back to your post giving us that definition?

oh and i posted the def for cooperation
your interpretation of any word has little meaning to me
you should look up integrity

Why make this personal? You still have not refuted my assertions about the emails. If you cannot do that, then our conversation is over.

Perhaps you are bit too emotional to discuss this logically.

Ha you give yourself too much credit, nothing between you and I is personal.
What assertations have you made about emails? That Hillary sent classified ones via a nosecure network? That Hillary knowingly disregarded the law in setting up an illegal network to conduct official US government business on ? That Hillary instructed her staff to delete emails containing official US government business?

Which assertation?

a reply to: shooterbrody

If you can't even keep up with the conversation, quit wasting my time.

Go back and read the posts if you wish, but I'm not going to go in circles with you.

a reply to: SonOfThor

Yes, it appears to be the full report. Here is a little tidbit:

As previously discussed, however, sending emails from a personal account to other employees at their Department accounts is not an appropriate method of preserving any such emails that would constitute a Federal record. Therefore, Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary. 98 At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act. NARA agrees with the foregoing assessment but told OIG that Secretary Clinton’s production of 55,000 pages of emails mitigated her failure to properly preserve emails that qualified as Federal records during her tenure and to surrender such records upon her departure

It goes on to state that there are still some records missing from her first few weeks in office.

It's a good read, but nothing groundbreaking.

originally posted by: introvert
Here is an interesting comment from the report:

exOn January 9, 2011, the non-Departmental advisor to President Clinton who provided technical support to the Clinton email system notified the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations that he had to shut down the server because he believed “someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to.”/ex

www.scribd.com...

Here is the complete quote:

On January 9, 2011, the non-Department al advisor to President Clinton who provided technical support to the Clinton email system notified the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations that he had to shut down the server because he believed “someone was trying to hack usand while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to.” Later that day, the advisor again wrote to the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Operations, “We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min.” On January 10, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations emailed the Chief of Staff and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Planning and instructed them not to email the Secretary “anything sensitive” and stated that she could
“explain more in person.”

source

Shut the server down for a few minutes, that is security lol's!

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: shooterbrody

If you can't even keep up with the conversation, quit wasting my time.

Go back and read the posts if you wish, but I'm not going to go in circles with you.

Haha your obviously the emotional one. Perhaps you need to step away from Hillary for a bit.

Were you referring to emails from Powell that the IG asked for? If so Powell actually was interviewed by the IG and the IG stated in the report he has not received them. The IG did not state Powell refused to send them. Perhaps the IG's office has received them and they have not made their way to the IG. Why would you assume Powell would cooperate for the interview and not produce emails asked from him?

In any event Powell was described as cooperating with the IG and Hillary and her minions have refused to even speak with the IG.

Now let's compare that to Powell:

To complement the official State Department computer in my office, I installed a laptop computer on a private line. My personal email account on the laptop allowed me direct access to anyone online. I started shooting emails to my principal assistants, to individual ambassadors, and increasingly to my foreign-minister colleagues

During his interview with OIG, Secretary Powell stated that he accessed the email account via his personal laptop computer in his office, while traveling, and at his residence, but not through a mobile device. His representative advised the Department that Secretary Powell “did not retain those emails or make printed copies.” 86 Secretary Powell also stated that neither he nor his representatives took any specific measures to preserve Federal records in his email account. Secretary Powell’s representative told OIG that she asked Department staff responsible for recordkeeping whether they needed to do anything to preserve the Secretary’s emails prior to his departure, though she could not recall the names or titles of these staff. According to the representative, the Department staff responded that the Secretary’s emails would be captured on Department servers because the Secretary had emailed other Department employees

Moreover, in keeping with NARA regulations, 89 the Department’s policies specifically acknowledged that its email system at the time did not contain features necessary for long-term preservation of Federal records. 90 Therefore, Secretary Powell should have preserved any Federal records he created and received on his personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary

At a minimum, Secretary Powell should have surrendered all emails sent from or received in his personal account that related to Department business. Because he did not do so at the time that he departed government service or at any time thereafter, Secretary Powell did not comply with Department policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act. In an attempt to address this deficiency, NARA requested that the Department inquire with Secretary Powell’s “internet service or email provider” to determine whether it is still possible to retrieve the email records that might remain on its servers. 92 The Under Secretary for Management subsequently informed NARA that the Department sent a letter to Secretary Powell’s representative conveying this request. 93 As of May 2016, the Department had not received a response from Secretary Powell or his representative.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

This was the important part:

Someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to

Didn't get in.

a reply to: introvert

So we have evidence that Powell is cooperating?
Have any evidence Powell has refused?
Have any evidence Powell has not contacted his internet provider as asked?
Powell used a laptop....that is alot different that a server no?

Have any evidence that Hillary has cooperated with the IG?

You sure are quick to make assumptions about anyone not named Hillary Rodham Clinton.

a reply to: shooterbrody

All I did is post the info regarding Powell that show similarities in conduct and OIG conclusions. I did not provide any commentary whatsoever, let alone any assumptions.

You need to get yourself together.

Again, you are obviously emotionally attached to this issue and need to put your emotions aside in order to digest this report logically.

a reply to: introvert

Just because one person did something illegal does not make it ok for someone else to do something illegal, so you might as well not waste your time trying to justify Hillary's actions by using Powell.

a reply to: introvert

And then there was another attempt after that first time.
The events in this excerpt alone show that there were attempts on the server.
Just because they did not see that someone got through the first time when he was looking does not mean that the proven attempts were not successful at other times.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: AlaskanDad

This was the important part:

ex Someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to /ex

Didn't get in.

This is also quite important:

Later that day, the advisor again wrote to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, “We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min.”

Then there was this:

On January 10, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations emailed the Chief of Staff and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Planning and instructed them not to email the Secretary “anything sensitive” and stated that she could
“explain more in person.”

Was the server shutdown, because it had been compromised and a hacker was downloading file?. I don't just power down when someone sniffs my firewall, but an active intrusion is different.

Then the added " instructed them not to email the Secretary “anything sensitive” really adds spice to the cake!

I bet her server was in fact hacked.

The SD report won't bring that out because the FBI is busy investigating.

And if the guy shut it down because he suspected a hack attempt, that means they didn't have any good firewalls online.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: shooterbrody

All I did is post the info regarding Powell that show similarities in conduct and OIG conclusions. I did not provide any commentary whatsoever, let alone any assumptions.

You need to get yourself together.

Again, you are obviously emotionally attached to this issue and need to put your emotions aside in order to digest this report logically.

no similarity at all

laptop vs server

classified info sent by hillary

apples and oranges

but by all means try to deflect this off of hillary by any means

It will look all the more ridiculous when she is indicted

All Hillary:

With regard to encryption, Secretary Clinton’s website states that “robust protections were put in place and additional upgrades and techniques employed over time as they became available, including consulting and employing third party experts.”150

Although this report does not address the safety or security of her system, DS and IRM reported to OIG that Secretary Clinton never demonstrated to them that her private server or mobile device met minimum information security requirements specified by FISMA and the FAM.

Scribd

She was told multiple times by multiple people that her private server was too easy to access and that she should use the official system.

It was secure because she says it was...

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: introvert

Just because one person did something illegal does not make it ok for someone else to do something illegal, so you might as well not waste your time trying to justify Hillary's actions by using Powell.

I'm not justifying anything. The point here is that this may not lead to any charges whatsoever.

And then there was another attempt after that first time. The events in this excerpt alone show that there were attempts on the server. Just because they did not see that someone got through the first time when he was looking does not mean that the proven attempts were not successful at other times.

Doesn't mean it was successfully hacked either.