Hillary Clinton is Done: part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
How dare we question Hillary Clinton's credentials as a datacenter infrastructure architect?
Click to expand...

Why would you question her credentials when she had nothing to do with putting it together or running it? She was merely a user, not a tech or an admin.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Why would you question her credentials when she had nothing to do with putting it together or running it? She was merely a user, not a tech or an admin.
Click to expand...

She was the owner and the person who set up the whole scheme to hide the stuff from foia/investigation/subpoenas.
 
Shalamar said:
Tsk Tsk. No. It's almost as if you believe that such things need physical access.
Click to expand...

Isn't it amazing that here we are talking on a board hosted in Sweden, formerly hosted in the US, run by an Admin in the UK, and with members from Japan to South Africa, and people still seem to think that for those who need access to a computer for things such as FOIA, they need to be physically in the same room as the machine. Just blows your mind, right?
 
The Big Dog said:
She was the owner and the person who set up the whole scheme to hide the stuff from foia/investigation/subpoenas.
Click to expand...

You really need to read your own links better....

Together, the documents, technically known as Form 302s, depict less a sinister and carefully calculated effort to avoid transparency than a busy and uninterested executive who shows little comfort with even the basics of technology, working with a small, harried inner circle of aides inside a bureaucracy where the IT and classification systems haven’t caught up with how business is conducted in the digital age. Reading the FBI’s interviews, Clinton’s team hardly seems organized enough to mount any sort of sinister cover-up. There’s scant oversight of the way Clinton communicated, and little thought given to how her files might be preserved for posterity—MacBook laptops with outdated archives are FedExed across the country, cutting-edge iPads are discarded quickly and BlackBerry devices are rejected for being “too heavy” as staff scrambled to cater to Clinton’s whims.
 
Shalamar said:
Oh you sly old dog. Yes you still suffer from it it. Your entire posting style is condescending, falsely superior, and overwhelmingly arrogant. Perhaps you need Jesus to lead you to a humble life.


Tsk Tsk. No. It's almost as if you believe that such things need physical access.




Still not simple enough for you, it seems, but hey, you managed to answer a total of TWO questions!

Don't worry: Shalamar, The Alpha Wolf is here to lead you.
Click to expand...

But if you don't have electronic access and you don't physical control... What do you have? Nothing! Or so Hillary thought.

She thought wrong which is why we have President Trump.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Isn't it amazing that here we are talking on a board hosted in Sweden, formerly hosted in the US, run by an Admin in the UK, and with members from Japan to South Africa, and people still seem to think that for those who need access to a computer for things such as FOIA, they need to be physically in the same room as the machine. Just blows your mind, right?
Click to expand...

Besides, I know the #1 'source' of 'hacking'. The simplest way to gain access to a system. I can easily manage it most of the time.
 
Shalamar said:
Besides, I know the #1 'source' of 'hacking'. The simplest way to gain access to a system. I can easily manage it most of the time.
Click to expand...

Would that be "password" or "abc123"? (and yes I know people that use both, in a business environment :facepalm icon here: )
 
Shalamar said:
Hah. 'Social' hacking. Either to gain physical access to the target, or to convince someone else to give up access.
Click to expand...

Something that is a lot harder when there are only a few people with access to the thing.

The real funny thing is that the link that TBD kept spamming is very interesting and refutes a lot of his own claims, and also explains a lot of what and why things happened. It even talks about the location and some of the pros and cons of using it. Apparently one of the issues they felt was that it had poor internet connection, though I would have thought that they should have been able to pay for a dedicated T1 line, and it's not like that would have been needed. Still from the article they hit a lot of the thing I thought myself from my experience including that the location would have less physical access to it, and that it would be easier and more likely to detect unusual traffic on it where if it was in a server farm that might not be the case. Of course when they did suspect an attempt to hack, they simply switched it off, something all but impossible to do in a server farm.

It seems that the arguments have been weaker and weaker.

We now seem to be left with that it wasn't under the "control of the people responsible for responding to foia, investigations and subpoenas." Yet there is nothing in the rules that said it needed to be. The rules were that if something was foia'ed, investigated or subpoenaed then you hand over what you have, not that ever bit of Government documentation must be under the control of the Government at all times. In fact DoS workers were allowed to use private email for business, the only thing that was stipulated was that they try and make sure to send a copy to their DoS address so that they had a copy. Clinton didn't actually have a DoS address.

The thing that she is guilty of if anything is making the mistake of having her lawyers and staff go through the emails before submitting them to the DoS, she should have given them the lot and let their lawyers and staff sort through them, not that it would have mattered, those that hate her would still have found something to twist and attack her with.
 
There is nothing in the rules that says government documents were not supposed to be in the possession of the government? :eek:

But the funny thing is? They were because Hillary and her staff were ultimately responsible for making sure they were.

Ask a lawyer whether it is ok to stick documents in your basement to avoid responding to a subpoena and see how that works out for ya.
 
The Big Dog said:
There is nothing in the rules that says government documents were not supposed to be in the possession of the government? :eek:

But the funny thing is? They were because Hillary and her staff were ultimately responsible for making sure they were.

Ask a lawyer whether it is ok to stick documents in your basement to avoid responding to a subpoena and see how that works out for ya.
Click to expand...

Still haven't bothered to read your own link I see.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Still haven't bothered to read your own link I see.
Click to expand...

Yep, I sure did! Thanks for proving that!!

No documents were made available off Hillary's server the entire time she was sos and not for a long time thereafter

You like that article tho? "Homebrewed"
 
The Big Dog said:
Yep, I sure did! Thanks for proving that!!

No documents were made available off Hillary's server the entire time she was sos and not for a long time thereafter

You like that article tho? "Homebrewed"
Click to expand...

Your reading comprehension seems to be lacking. Perhaps you need to look up why authors include things in quotation marks, and then actually read the article you keep going on about. It doesn't say what you think it does.
 
Last edited:
The big dog should read up on SSL certs and how that plays into server management. Might not hurt to brush up on the role of a physical firewall, which apparently she has as well.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom