It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Opinion piece- Email Hack Unmasks a Commander-in-Chief Who Can't Even Protect Herself

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Richard Fernandez at PJ Media has an interesting take on the DNC email hack and Putin's role in it. It's his opinion that Putin is going to use strategic leaks to humiliate Hillary. His reasons for wanting a bit of revenge are well documented. I'll just let him explain it.



On the eve of Hillary's coronation, her courtiers are suddenly waking up to the fact that she cannot protect them.

The shock may be intentional. If Putin was indeed behind the hacking, he is only doing what underdogs through history have done to even the odds. Unable to match the foe in weight, he went for the king, or in this case the queen.




Democratic voters looked up to her to protect and defend the nation because that's what presidents do. By hacking Hillary and humiliating her, Putin has sent the message that she cannot even defend herself -- and what's the use of a president who can't defend herself?


May be worth a read and some discussion. Here's the whole thing.
edit on 26-7-2016 by bbarkow because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 11:53 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: bbarkow

Though I don't completely agree, you are all formatted correctly


s&f
edit on 27-7-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 01:24 AM
link   
(Facepalm) So she's supposed to be an IT security guru, now? Is the CISSP a requirement to run for President, now?

Does anyone really think any of these candidates can stop a hack on a server? Does anyone even think most of these candidates or voters can even point out an email server if it was in the same room as them? (Note: you can also set up an email server as a "virtual machine" on another computer so that's a trick question lol.)

And obviously the President/Commander-in-Chief doesn't need to be able to defend himself or herself physically. That's the whole point in bodyguards and the Secret Service. And it's not like the President/Commander-in-Chief is going to be on the front lines so he/she can literally "protect" anyone, in the first place. In fact, the President/Commander-in-Chief and many other top officials are personally moved to safe, undisclosed areas during emergencies specifically to keep them out of harm's way.

So if anything, the people serving the President/Commander-in-Chief are the ones who are at fault or need more training if they can't protect the President/Commander-in-Chief. Not the other way around.

(rant off & yes, I was mildly triggered. lol. not sure why either. i might need another break from ats because everything's irking me now :mad


ETA: really? i wanted a grumpy face and it made a smiley face. grrr


edit on 27-7-2016 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-7-2016 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Hillary really doesn't have a great history of using government systems nor protocol design to keep data safe. Maybe not having her own bathroom server might be a good start? Not sidestepping government rules to prevent a record of her corruption?



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Not expecting an IT professional in the Oval Office anytime soon, but adhering to protocol and law regarding sensitive material might be nice. Especially since she and her buddies like John Kerry called for Snowden's head for pointing out how much the U.S. government was spying on the whole effin' world.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 02:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: bbarkow

Though I don't completely agree, you are all formatted correctly


s&f


You don't completely agree;

On which parts do you not agree?

Do you adhear to that correct format you mention?

Which is the correct format?



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 04:52 AM
link   
The only thing she's being attacked by is the truth. If she would run a legit campaign none of this would've happened. I swear people are either extremely gullible or are part of the biggest problem in this country...Corruption!
edit on 27-7-2016 by amicktd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 06:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Hillary really doesn't have a great history of using government systems nor protocol design to keep data safe. Maybe not having her own bathroom server might be a good start? Not sidestepping government rules to prevent a record of her corruption?

And once again, do you think that's something she personally does? Or is it something her team does for her? Do you really think she knows how to set up or run a server, much less how to keep it secure?



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra




Though I don't completely agree, you are all formatted correctly


You know my self esteem depends on your approval.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct




You don't completely agree; On which parts do you not agree? Do you adhear to that correct format you mention? Which is the correct format?


The format stuff was just about giving me a little grief. Long story, but it's cool.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant




And once again, do you think that's something she personally does? Or is it something her team does for her? Do you really think she knows how to set up or run a server, much less how to keep it secure?


In any organization, the head of that organization is responsible for every aspect of what happens down the chain. I speak from experience, btw.

If one of my people screwed up, I was held responsible. If one of my people had passed on proprietary information, I would have had to answer for that too.

Hillary was responsible for putting quality people in positions of responsibility, so the "how was I supposed to know?" excuse is a dog that just won't hunt.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: bbarkow



Hillary was responsible for putting quality people in positions of responsibility, so the "how was I supposed to know?" excuse is a dog that just won't hunt.

That, and she was completely responsible for the decision to keep her emails off of government server and on her very own 'home brew' server.... a homebrew server that she bears complete responsibility for.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
(Facepalm) So she's supposed to be an IT security guru, now? Is the CISSP a requirement to run for President, now?

Does anyone really think any of these candidates can stop a hack on a server? Does anyone even think most of these candidates or voters can even point out an email server if it was in the same room as them? (Note: you can also set up an email server as a "virtual machine" on another computer so that's a trick question lol.)

And obviously the President/Commander-in-Chief doesn't need to be able to defend himself or herself physically. That's the whole point in bodyguards and the Secret Service. And it's not like the President/Commander-in-Chief is going to be on the front lines so he/she can literally "protect" anyone, in the first place. In fact, the President/Commander-in-Chief and many other top officials are personally moved to safe, undisclosed areas during emergencies specifically to keep them out of harm's way.

So if anything, the people serving the President/Commander-in-Chief are the ones who are at fault or need more training if they can't protect the President/Commander-in-Chief. Not the other way around.

(rant off & yes, I was mildly triggered. lol. not sure why either. i might need another break from ats because everything's irking me now :mad


ETA: really? i wanted a grumpy face and it made a smiley face. grrr



No she does not have to be an IT expert, but she should at least have an EXPERT on staff by now to at least speak to the press.
She cant even do that right.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Well they didn't hack Hillary they hacked the DNC.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

You are correct.
Who was in charge of that? Oh the person who recently was offered a JOB on hillarys campaign.

What is it 9 investigations you like to throw about as wasting taxpayer dollars? If hillary and the dnc cant connect the dots about security and electronic media they simply are not qualified to be in charge. Either they dont care or they are idiots; even a child stops putting hands on a hot stove when burned. Why at the least have they not hired electronic security experts?



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

But they should be smart enough to hire people who can ensure cyber security and not so arrogant to think that, even if they do get caught, they'll just lie their way out of it. Hillary can't even answer a straight questions. Ask her a plain yes or no question and you'll get a 20 minute "answer"....that does everything but answer the question.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant
But at some point you HAVE to point it back to her. You can't keep saying it was "her people". When you are President you MUST own what "your people" do. If she can't select better people than that shows she has a problem.

So point it at her....point it at "her people". Hillary has problems!



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Hillary should be the one setting the tone of following laws and regulations for handling state secrets. Setting the example of transparency and establishing documentation for government archives. Setting goals and budgets to improve department network security and that departments ability to get electronic information. Did she do any of those items as Secretary of State. Or was it a front to launder money to the Clinton foundation. Hillary seems to be more guilty of what is pinned on the GOP by the media? Note, I'm prob more libertarian....
edit on 27-7-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-7-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
10

log in

join