American Politics 4.0 - Orangeyou Glad He’s Back?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by curves2000

Hillary Clinton and her email server. What do you think the official report would have said?? This women bypassed the US President, Secret Service, FBI, State Department, NSA and other organizations.

Okay, this is totally wrong and most of it a complete fabrication. At the time there was nothing on the books that forbid the use of email relays or private servers by government employees. Just like forwarding emails was not against the rules at the time. The issue at play here was not the actual use of the server. The issues were specific to data handling, retention, and dissemination. It was all data related because that is all the government cares about. The hardware and location was irrelevant because the practice was pretty common and acceptable, especially for those in political positions. Jesus, the whole Bush Administration ran the government off of servers hosted by the RNCC and no one batted an eye.

The rules at the time were very lax when it came to email, because the belief was that appropriate data handling labels would be observed and nothing would leak out of the systems of record (this is important what got Clinton in trouble). The DLP solutions used by the government at the time were pretty weak and handling labels were predominantly placed on files, both digital and paper, meaning you had to review documents/attachments to understand the handling requirements. Because email forwarding between systems was very prevalent back then a lot of information made it into the digital wild. The rules at the time focused not on the reception or possession of classified data, but instead on dissemination of the information after the fact. If you received data with a classification label on it, regardless of how high, you were in the clear. No crime for receiving it or being in possession of it because you had no control in the creation or sending of the email. The only time you would get into trouble is if you disseminated that information to another party (the crime being second party dissemination), and this would only apply for data with specific handling levels.

Now, "classified" gets thrown around a lot and is considered ubiquitous for top secret, which it is not. Classified means having a classification label on it, not meaning that anything was a state secret, just that is had a classification level attached to it. Labels can vary between agencies, but the most general are controlled unclassified information, confidential, secret, and top secret. These are the basic mandatory access controls and your clearance level establishes what information you are allowed to access, view, and possess.#You may only access information as high as your top-level clearance. Clinton, being Secretary of State, had access to top secret materials, meaning she could receive, store, and possess anything that could come through a government email server.

Some of what Clinton had on her systems was "classified" material, meaning it had a handling label on the information. As pointed to earlier, almost all information can be identified as classified as controlled unclassified information is a classification label. This whole "classified" issue is actually a red herring because Clinton maintained a security clearance that allowed her to have access to everything on those servers.

What did get Clinton in trouble was a claim that she had lax retention practices and was not following the expectations of the State Department in this regard. Retaining information for too long a period can get you in as much trouble as deleting information prematurely. Her support team (the guys out of Denver) were not following protocol and purging the system with regularity, and this information had been discovered by the department. Her team was instructed to complete a purge a couple months earlier, which they didn't do. Clinton was served a record preservation hold, meaning her staff we supposed to halt all actions that could eliminate data until such time a full audit of the system was completed. This was to validate that the data on her servers were consistent with the data on the servers at the State Department. Clinton's staff saw this hold order and panicked because of the purge they failed to do, believing this would get them in even more trouble. Her IT staff ignored the hold order and completed the record purge, then used a bad commercial product to try and cover their tracks. They did this without the knowledge of Clinton or anyone else on her staff.

How do we know this is what happened? Because the FBI gave immunity to her IT staff and they fessed up. We also know this is the fact because of the findings from the FBI's forensic investigation of the hard disks from the server. They were able to piece together a huge number of documents and were able to figure out exactly what transpired. Even after a full FBI forensic investigation, multiple congressional hearings, and a full audit of the data by the State Department, the only outcome was Clinton receiving a reprimand for actions. In fact, many others were considered more culpable in this scandal as they improperly disseminated information (second party dissemination), even though it was determined there was no systemic failure or deliberate act in sharing of any classified information.

Since this event, Obama tightened controls over such technology use and data handling through an executive order, which has not been observed consistently. The Trump admin ran much of the government off a Trump server in Trump Tower and did have a flow of classified information going to people without appropriate security clearances.

BTW, I am not a Clinton fan at all. Thought she was a harpy when she was First Lady. But I think that it is important to review the facts of the event in context and give all a fair shake and explain why the outcomes were what they were. Now, back to our regularly scheduled cringe fest featuring Donald Trump and his merry band of miscreants.

[Whynotnow]

I wish he hadn’t pardoned him and as a father I can totally understand him doing it. Just sucks this is where the country has devolved to.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I guess the question is, is it an abuse of power? Or is the power itself the issue? What, precisely, did Biden do wrong?

I don’t think anyone is arguing that. What they are arguing is that Dems have spent years saying the Justice Department was not politicized, despite Trump’s claims. Yet we have Biden saying just that.

It plays right into the messaging Trump has been putting out. Justice department needs overhaul, Dems are liars, Trump is a victim.

Dems should be rightfully upset here and not hand waving that Trump is worse. No one debates that but now you’ve played into his hand and lowered yourself. Its a political disaster or at very least they have lost the argument with non partisans on Justice.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Gold medals could be handed out for the whataboutism and mental gymnastics today

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation (cf. agenda setting, framing, framing effect, priming, cherry picking). The deviation from them can then be branded as whataboutism.

Even if you successfully level the charge of whatboutism, the only victory that can bring is that the pardon of Hunter is, in fact, bad. It does not, in any way, invalidate a comparison to Trump whereby Trump is way worse. Actually, the more you see an inappropriate pardon as "bad", the worse Trump gets.

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Okay, this is totally wrong and most of it a complete fabrication. At the time there was nothing on the books that forbid the use of email relays or private servers by government employees. Just like forwarding emails was not against the rules at the time. The issue at play here was not the actual use of the server. The issues were specific to data handling, retention, and dissemination. It was all data related because that is all the government cares about. The hardware and location was irrelevant because the practice was pretty common and acceptable, especially for those in political positions. Jesus, the whole Bush Administration ran the government off of servers hosted by the RNCC and no one batted an eye.

The rules at the time were very lax when it came to email, because the belief was that appropriate data handling labels would be observed and nothing would leak out of the systems of record (this is important what got Clinton in trouble). The DLP solutions used by the government at the time were pretty weak and handling labels were predominantly placed on files, both digital and paper, meaning you had to review documents/attachments to understand the handling requirements. Because email forwarding between systems was very prevalent back then a lot of information made it into the digital wild. The rules at the time focused not on the reception or possession of classified data, but instead on dissemination of the information after the fact. If you received data with a classification label on it, regardless of how high, you were in the clear. No crime for receiving it or being in possession of it because you had no control in the creation or sending of the email. The only time you would get into trouble is if you disseminated that information to another party (the crime being second party dissemination), and this would only apply for data with specific handling levels.

Now, "classified" gets thrown around a lot and is considered ubiquitous for top secret, which it is not. Classified means having a classification label on it, not meaning that anything was a state secret, just that is had a classification level attached to it. Labels can vary between agencies, but the most general are controlled unclassified information, confidential, secret, and top secret. These are the basic mandatory access controls and your clearance level establishes what information you are allowed to access, view, and possess.#You may only access information as high as your top-level clearance. Clinton, being Secretary of State, had access to top secret materials, meaning she could receive, store, and possess anything that could come through a government email server.

Some of what Clinton had on her systems was "classified" material, meaning it had a handling label on the information. As pointed to earlier, almost all information can be identified as classified as controlled unclassified information is a classification label. This whole "classified" issue is actually a red herring because Clinton maintained a security clearance that allowed her to have access to everything on those servers.

What did get Clinton in trouble was a claim that she had lax retention practices and was not following the expectations of the State Department in this regard. Retaining information for too long a period can get you in as much trouble as deleting information prematurely. Her support team (the guys out of Denver) were not following protocol and purging the system with regularity, and this information had been discovered by the department. Her team was instructed to complete a purge a couple months earlier, which they didn't do. Clinton was served a record preservation hold, meaning her staff we supposed to halt all actions that could eliminate data until such time a full audit of the system was completed. This was to validate that the data on her servers were consistent with the data on the servers at the State Department. Clinton's staff saw this hold order and panicked because of the purge they failed to do, believing this would get them in even more trouble. Her IT staff ignored the hold order and completed the record purge, then used a bad commercial product to try and cover their tracks. They did this without the knowledge of Clinton or anyone else on her staff.

How do we know this is what happened? Because the FBI gave immunity to her IT staff and they fessed up. We also know this is the fact because of the findings from the FBI's forensic investigation of the hard disks from the server. They were able to piece together a huge number of documents and were able to figure out exactly what transpired. Even after a full FBI forensic investigation, multiple congressional hearings, and a full audit of the data by the State Department, the only outcome was Clinton receiving a reprimand for actions. In fact, many others were considered more culpable in this scandal as they improperly disseminated information (second party dissemination), even though it was determined there was no systemic failure or deliberate act in sharing of any classified information.

Since this event, Obama tightened controls over such technology use and data handling through an executive order, which has not been observed consistently. The Trump admin ran much of the government off a Trump server in Trump Tower and did have a flow of classified information going to people without appropriate security clearances.

BTW, I am not a Clinton fan at all. Thought she was a harpy when she was First Lady. But I think that it is important to review the facts of the event in context and give all a fair shake and explain why the outcomes were what they were. Now, back to our regularly scheduled cringe fest featuring Donald Trump and his merry band of miscreants.

You are not wrong on anything but your forgetting a very key piece that is extremely important and vital. When her and Obama were Senators they were issued Blackberry devices with access to email like everybody else had in the Senate and in the corporate world in the 2001-2008 time frame.

When Obama became President he could not give up his Crackberry as they were known then. He wanted it badly so the Secret Service, the NSA, Whitehouse IT staff and other agencies bent over backwards and worked with Blackberry in Canada for an ultra secured but extremely dumb downed version of a device.

Hillary Clinton wanted one as well but was denied by the same government agencies. Special consideration for what really wasn't allowed back then was made for the Commander in Chief and nobody else.

Clinton was denied and continued to use a personal device with absolutely no record keeping and security services that would have been part of the Blackberry/ Senate IT program at that time. Senate, State, and other agencies had no access to her personal Blackberry device server and more that could be monitored. This was deliberate, ethically wrong and dangerous. When put into the context of a request being denied by top level US security agencies and bypassing their decline for your own use, that is where things get dicey. Other high ranking officials did not have this afforded to them, the US President was given special consideration as a one off in 2008 but Clinton can do her own thing with no ****'s given?

Imagine a bank executive who is using a device with limited security and controls while having access to the network, files, systems and more like funds. No electronic tracing would be happening and all this occurred after being declined by corporate IT and security. A security incident has occurred and an investigation is opened into financial losses. Investigators are trying to find missing messages/emails/financial ledgers and more. 35k files and messages are not found and the excuse why is the bank executive deleted messages about NHL prospects, 4th line grinders, back up goalies and NHL Player tie and suit debates.

People are going to sit here and say this was just a mistake ?

Back to Psyco Man bashing and all things Trump related

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Okay, this is totally wrong and most of it a complete fabrication. At the time there was nothing on the books that forbid the use of email relays or private servers by government employees. Just like forwarding emails was not against the rules at the time. The issue at play here was not the actual use of the server. The issues were specific to data handling, retention, and dissemination. It was all data related because that is all the government cares about. The hardware and location was irrelevant because the practice was pretty common and acceptable, especially for those in political positions. Jesus, the whole Bush Administration ran the government off of servers hosted by the RNCC and no one batted an eye.

The rules at the time were very lax when it came to email, because the belief was that appropriate data handling labels would be observed and nothing would leak out of the systems of record (this is important what got Clinton in trouble). The DLP solutions used by the government at the time were pretty weak and handling labels were predominantly placed on files, both digital and paper, meaning you had to review documents/attachments to understand the handling requirements. Because email forwarding between systems was very prevalent back then a lot of information made it into the digital wild. The rules at the time focused not on the reception or possession of classified data, but instead on dissemination of the information after the fact. If you received data with a classification label on it, regardless of how high, you were in the clear. No crime for receiving it or being in possession of it because you had no control in the creation or sending of the email. The only time you would get into trouble is if you disseminated that information to another party (the crime being second party dissemination), and this would only apply for data with specific handling levels.

Now, "classified" gets thrown around a lot and is considered ubiquitous for top secret, which it is not. Classified means having a classification label on it, not meaning that anything was a state secret, just that is had a classification level attached to it. Labels can vary between agencies, but the most general are controlled unclassified information, confidential, secret, and top secret. These are the basic mandatory access controls and your clearance level establishes what information you are allowed to access, view, and possess.#You may only access information as high as your top-level clearance. Clinton, being Secretary of State, had access to top secret materials, meaning she could receive, store, and possess anything that could come through a government email server.

Some of what Clinton had on her systems was "classified" material, meaning it had a handling label on the information. As pointed to earlier, almost all information can be identified as classified as controlled unclassified information is a classification label. This whole "classified" issue is actually a red herring because Clinton maintained a security clearance that allowed her to have access to everything on those servers.

What did get Clinton in trouble was a claim that she had lax retention practices and was not following the expectations of the State Department in this regard. Retaining information for too long a period can get you in as much trouble as deleting information prematurely. Her support team (the guys out of Denver) were not following protocol and purging the system with regularity, and this information had been discovered by the department. Her team was instructed to complete a purge a couple months earlier, which they didn't do. Clinton was served a record preservation hold, meaning her staff we supposed to halt all actions that could eliminate data until such time a full audit of the system was completed. This was to validate that the data on her servers were consistent with the data on the servers at the State Department. Clinton's staff saw this hold order and panicked because of the purge they failed to do, believing this would get them in even more trouble. Her IT staff ignored the hold order and completed the record purge, then used a bad commercial product to try and cover their tracks. They did this without the knowledge of Clinton or anyone else on her staff.

How do we know this is what happened? Because the FBI gave immunity to her IT staff and they fessed up. We also know this is the fact because of the findings from the FBI's forensic investigation of the hard disks from the server. They were able to piece together a huge number of documents and were able to figure out exactly what transpired. Even after a full FBI forensic investigation, multiple congressional hearings, and a full audit of the data by the State Department, the only outcome was Clinton receiving a reprimand for actions. In fact, many others were considered more culpable in this scandal as they improperly disseminated information (second party dissemination), even though it was determined there was no systemic failure or deliberate act in sharing of any classified information.

Since this event, Obama tightened controls over such technology use and data handling through an executive order, which has not been observed consistently. The Trump admin ran much of the government off a Trump server in Trump Tower and did have a flow of classified information going to people without appropriate security clearances.

BTW, I am not a Clinton fan at all. Thought she was a harpy when she was First Lady. But I think that it is important to review the facts of the event in context and give all a fair shake and explain why the outcomes were what they were. Now, back to our regularly scheduled cringe fest featuring Donald Trump and his merry band of miscreants.

God, it's even more boring hearing all these details. How anyone could get seriously upset about something like this speaks to their clear bias and hatred against Hillary. It's even more hilarious hearing chants like "lock her up!" over something so dull and inconsequential.

"But her emails!" ...sigh.

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by curves2000

You are not wrong on anything but your forgetting a very key piece that is extremely important and vital. When her and Obama were Senators they were issued Blackberry devices with access to email like everybody else had in the Senate and in the corporate world in the 2001-2008 time frame.

When Obama became President he could not give up his Crackberry as they were known then. He wanted it badly so the Secret Service, the NSA, Whitehouse IT staff and other agencies bent over backwards and worked with Blackberry in Canada for an ultra secured but extremely dumb downed version of a device.

Hillary Clinton wanted one as well but was denied by the same government agencies. Special consideration for what really wasn't allowed back then was made for the Commander in Chief and nobody else.

Clinton was denied and continued to use a personal device with absolutely no record keeping and security services that would have been part of the Blackberry/ Senate IT program at that time. Senate, State, and other agencies had no access to her personal Blackberry device server and more that could be monitored. This was deliberate, ethically wrong and dangerous. When put into the context of a request being denied by top level US security agencies and bypassing their decline for your own use, that is where things get dicey. Other high ranking officials did not have this afforded to them, the US President was given special consideration as a one off in 2008 but Clinton can do her own thing with no ****'s given?

Imagine a bank executive who is using a device with limited security and controls while having access to the network, files, systems and more like funds. No electronic tracing would be happening and all this occurred after being declined by corporate IT and security. A security incident has occurred and an investigation is opened into financial losses. Investigators are trying to find missing messages/emails/financial ledgers and more. 35k files and messages are not found and the excuse why is the bank executive deleted messages about NHL prospects, 4th line grinders, back up goalies and NHL Player tie and suit debates.

People are going to sit here and say this was just a mistake ?

Back to Psyco Man bashing and all things Trump related

Thoughts on Benghazi? @curves

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by Rutuu

Thoughts on Benghazi? @curves

100% honest truth is that I really don't have any real opinion or really any knowledge on the matter. I know some servicemen and Embassy officials were killed and that's all. It just was not a story I had any interest in.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by curves2000

You are not wrong on anything but your forgetting a very key piece that is extremely important and vital.

I'm not forgetting anything. The device was and remains irrelevant. It was a red herring. The data was all that mattered. But for more context, at the time, Blackberry and BES was considered one of the most secure systems for email and messaging. RIM had introduced security protocols that would have Microsoft and IBM chasing them for several years. The problem with the platform is all traffic was routed through RIM infrastructure in Canada, giving some pause for such use, hence the desire to use a private server. This was always the workaround and was considered acceptable because BES was best in class and featured the best security.

The feds wanted to move to another platform and standardize, but nothing was close to surpassing the Blackberry at that point. Apple would come along and dethrone the RIM solution in next few years, then Android would cause departments to rethink their strategy (the FBI loved the Android, but the OS was so insecure they invested the time and energy to write their own version of the OS with a custom security layer that made it as secure as the iPhone) but this was all future and irrelevant to main issue of data security. With the exception of the Android (at the time) most devices, maintained data encryption at rest and in transit, meeting FIPS-140 requirements.

Even to this day, when it comes to handling data, the device is irrelevant. All expectation of handling is clearly defined in the department's respective handling policy which then identifies the minimum-security requirements for storage and movement of specific data types and classifications. Even with the introduction of data governance programs across the federal government, nothing has changed in this regard, and is how mandatory access controls are broadly enforced to protect data.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Japanese gameshows/comedy skits!

https://twitter.com/user/status/1846394406577782910

https://twitter.com/user/status/1158561076142755840

Thats what I'm talking about! How do they come up with this stuff? Its goddamned brilliant!

That one part on the stairs one where the guy climbs onto the other guy's back and they both tumble back to hell taking everyone with them? That was like Trump jumping on Joe...you cannot tell me people wouldnt pay real money to see that!!

Hilary is back there somewhere trying to use the railing to climb the steps and presumably Obama is at the top smoking a cigar and having a glass of scotch.

Thats not the Government the USA deserves, but its the Government they need right now!

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I don’t think anyone is arguing that. What they are arguing is that Dems have spent years saying the Justice Department was not politicized, despite Trump’s claims. Yet we have Biden saying just that.

It plays right into the messaging Trump has been putting out. Justice department needs overhaul, Dems are liars, Trump is a victim.

Dems should be rightfully upset here and not hand waving that Trump is worse. No one debates that but now you’ve played into his hand and lowered yourself. Its a political disaster or at very least they have lost the argument with non partisans on Justice.

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Not saying I wouldn't do the same. Hell, If I had absolute power and immunity I'd probably do a lot more. Not sure this abuse of power should be celebrated as much as it seems to be.

OldDutch, I was responding to this comment, so that's why I questioned it. Someone did say it.

As to the rest of your post, well ya, Biden didn't just pardon his son the day Trump was elected, he waited, and after the AG was announced(second one) who has an axe to grind with Biden, it's pretty obvious it would be politicized, unless you are one of those who believe politicians will moderate once in power. But that's dumb to believe because we know it isn't true. I think pretty much anyone facing the same situation would take along hard look at it, and come to the exact same conclusion Joe did. #### 'em. Don't take the risk with crazy. And these people are clearly crazy and don't believe in the rule of law, so why would you risk that with your son?

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

He broke a promise. Had Trump lost I expect he wouldn’t have bothered, but he wanted to protect his son from Trump’s Justice Department, which will do all the things Trump claimed were done to him.

I feel like it was wrong to do it, but political norms have shifted so much it’s hard to say if it really was.

A lot changed since he made that promise. He was up for a second term then. The dems hadn't seen a massive loss of all orders of government. Crazy conspiracy theory corrupt bigott wasn't on her way to head the government legal department, targeting his son. Nah, it's fine.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by curves2000

100% honest truth is that I really don't have any real opinion or really any knowledge on the matter.

This caveat should be at the start of all your posts.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The only reason why I know Stephen Harper had a kid is because a teenaged girl who is friends with his son was plied with alcohol at their home and suffered from alcohol poisoning.

I knew Harper had a son because he shook his hand when he dropped him off at school like a robot. It was so hilarious, and my wife and I still make fun of that to this day.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Slava

I knew Harper had a son because he shook his hand when he dropped him off at school like a robot. It was so hilarious, and my wife and I still make fun of that to this day.

You should see Harper's band, the moshpit is fire

[Fuzz]

Did he have have a cute little Mini Harper sweater?

[Ped]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Did he have have a cute little Mini Harper sweater-vest?

fyp

[CroFlames]

I met Harper on a plane once I guess he was going to the democracy association thing he's part of. Sat directly behind me.

He is so robotic that it is actually comical.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

As to the rest of your post, well ya, Biden didn't just pardon his son the day Trump was elected, he waited, and after the AG was announced(second one) who has an axe to grind with Biden, it's pretty obvious it would be politicized, unless you are one of those who believe politicians will moderate once in power. But that's dumb to believe because we know it isn't true. I think pretty much anyone facing the same situation would take along hard look at it, and come to the exact same conclusion Joe did. #### 'em. Don't take the risk with crazy. And these people are clearly crazy and don't believe in the rule of law, so why would you risk that with your son?

As a brother and father, I get it. That said, Hunter got himself in this mess. He was due to be sentenced before Trump was in office (December). So that means Joe would have been worried of further charges. Which Hunter was either guilty of, or not-guilty but due to the Justice department being influenceable by the president would see him convicted.

Think about that statement. Its basically saying Hunter gets off for criminal acts cause ol' pop thinks he's a good kid -and/or- the Justice Department is crooked and works for the president.

From a strictly political (again not court of law) lens this just sewered Dems with the general (non-hyper partisan) populace

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I met Harper on a plane once I guess he was going to the democracy association thing he's part of. Sat directly behind me.

He is so robotic that it is actually comical.

I met him in my work elevator once. I did find him to be fairly stiff, but was genuinely warm and friendly. He's a policy wonk, not a drama teacher. Something politics aside we are sorely needing in this country when it comes to things like housing and immigration.

[Ozy_Flame]

You're about to get one of the biggest, over-zealous, iron-clad pensioned career policy wonks next year, so don't hold your breath too long.