Petraeus Emails - Who is Paula Broadwell?

[The Big Dog]

Patraeus gave it to one person to read and digest. He intended for her to not just store the content, not just have access to the content, not just catalog the content, but to dissect it and understand it. He gave it to her for her consumption without any means to limit what she did with it. If you can show that anyone on Hillary's team was instructed to do something similar that would be interesting.

So to "read" it.

 

[Dr. Keith]

So to "read" it.

Go ahead, that's why I wrote it.

 

[The Big Dog]

Go ahead, that's why I wrote it.

I did, I just took out all the extra words you put in there.

 

[newyorkguy]

One of the things I think that was in Clinton's favor was the fact she made no secret she wanted to be able to use her Blackberry to handle State business. When that proved unworkable she made no attempt to hide the fact she was using her own, private server.

This is a comment from another former government official, Clay Johnson:

As the former director of Sunlight Labs at the Sunlight Foundation, it’s a cause I care about...Let’s be clear, that personal email was probably far more secure than her state.gov email account. The State Department’s email system has been compromised for months. It’s highly likely that it’s been compromised since forever: remember, during her tenure, Wikileaks released the State Department’s classified communications. Link

I think that Wikileaks has hacked the State Department server but apparently did not hack Secretary Clinton's personal server is a fact favorable to Clinton.

Another factor is Clinton's service. I think most objective or neutral observers would be willing to see: She worked hard as Secretary of State during a very difficult period. That she used an easier means of communications -- despite the fact it was a security violation -- has to be seen within the context of the immense pressures she was under. She wanted every tool available to help her do her job. Of course people who absolutely despise Hillary Clinton aren't going to buy that. Because no matter what she does they will find reasons to hate her. In the end, it's really more about them than it is Hillary Clinton.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...In the end, it's really more about them than it is Hillary Clinton.

Well, yes.

I recall one or two congressmen who, in the closing days of the campaign, said they had enough odds and ends to go after her for years (not to mention the noise about impeaching her on day one). Funny how those countless serious and potentially criminal matters are no longer considered worthy of attention.

 

[Reheat]

One of the things I think that was in Clinton's favor was the fact she made no secret she wanted to be able to use her Blackberry to handle State business. When that proved unworkable she made no attempt to hide the fact she was using her own, private server.

This is a comment from another former government official, Clay Johnson:


I think that Wikileaks has hacked the State Department server but apparently did not hack Secretary Clinton's personal server is a fact favorable to Clinton.

Another factor is Clinton's service. I think most objective or neutral observers would be willing to see: She worked hard as Secretary of State during a very difficult period. That she used an easier means of communications -- despite the fact it was a security violation -- has to be seen within the context of the immense pressures she was under. She wanted every tool available to help her do her job. Of course people who absolutely despise Hillary Clinton aren't going to buy that. Because no matter what she does they will find reasons to hate her. In the end, it's really more about them than it is Hillary Clinton.

Sure, she was only Sec of State, so she had no responsibility to fix the security of the network at the State Department. It was more important that she create her own more secure server to hide stuff knowing that supporters would be OK with that. Never mind about the Russians and Wikileaks possibly accessing State Dept stuff, but as long as Hillary's is safe, we're good with that because we like her and we'll find every way possible to exonerate her misdeeds.

 

[newyorkguy]

Sure, she was only Sec of State, so she had no responsibility to fix the security of the network at the State Department...

Why do you assume she didn't? But I guess I already answered that.

No matter what she does they will find reasons to hate her. In the end, it's really more about them than it is Hillary Clinton.

 

[Stacko]

This is a hell of a headline:

Petraeus would have to notify probation officer if named secretary of State

 

[Reheat]

Why do you assume she didn't? But I guess I already answered that.

Yes, you certainly did! Why are you exonerating her for failing to do her job of securing the State Dept network, but support her for using an unauthorized personal server and then keeping Government property for two years after she left office. or do you believe her proven lie that over % 90 were captured by the State Dept Network. Why do you support someone who is a proven liar over and over again. Do you not care about ethics and honesty in Govt.?

Look I don't exactly hate her for any other reason than she's proven over and over again that she is a dishonest sleazebag.

 

[Belz...]

This is a hell of a headline:

Petraeus would have to notify probation officer if named secretary of State

Nope. Nothing unusual here.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, you certainly did! Why are you exonerating her for failing to do her job of securing the State Dept network, but support her for using an unauthorized personal server and then keeping Government property for two years after she left office.

Are you exonerating Patraeus for disclosing classified information?

 

[quadraginta]

Sure, she was only Sec of State, so she had no responsibility to fix the security of the network at the State Department. It was more important that she create her own more secure server

<snip>

It must not have been that easy to change State Dept. IT, since Colin Powell wasn't able to make any headway either during the four years he was Secretary of State.

At least Hillary used a private server, which was apparently more secure than the State Dept's., since there's no evidence it was ever hacked. Unlike State's.

Powell just used private phone lines hooked up to his laptop, and his personal email accounts to communicate with foreign leaders. All without any supervision or authorization by State Dept. IT or security.

But then, he was a Republican's Secretary of State. So that makes it all legit.

 

[Reheat]

It must not have been that easy to change State Dept. IT, since Colin Powell wasn't able to make any headway either during the four years he was Secretary of State.

How do you know he made no progress?

At least Hillary used a private server, which was apparently more secure than the State Dept's., since there's no evidence it was ever hacked. Unlike State's.

You don't know any of this to be fact. Prove it, if you do.

Powell just used private phone lines hooked up to his laptop, and his personal email accounts to communicate with foreign leaders. All without any supervision or authorization by State Dept. IT or security.

Provide a link if you can prove any of this BS.

But then, he was a Republican's Secretary of State. So that makes it all legit.

Strawman, BIG time.

 

[uke2se]

How do you know he made no progress?



You don't know any of this to be fact. Prove it, if you do.



Provide a link if you can prove any of this BS.



Strawman, BIG time.

Why are you letting Petreaus off the hook when according to your own claim, what he did was the same as what Hillary did, and she's a 'whore'?

Is it because she's a 'whore' that you aren't letting her off the hook?

Or is it because she's a Democrat?

 

[The Don]

You don't know any of this to be fact. Prove it, if you do.

Of which, that the State Department was hacked - in which case wikileaks is your answer - or that Hillary's was not hacked - in which case how do you provide evidence that something was not hacked

 

[Reheat]

Of which, that the State Department was hacked - in which case wikileaks is your answer - or that Hillary's was not hacked - in which case how do you provide evidence that something was not hacked

That was my point. From this issue then, the lesson is that the head of every Department in the Executive Branch needs to use a private server? amiright?

I've been at Osan AB south of Seoul and watched intrusion attempts that were so numerous they couldn't be individually counted. The reports each month were astounding. They were mostly coming from China. If the AF can successfully block hacking attempts why can't the State Department?

During Colin Powell's tenure he upgraded Wang Computers to PCs, but I can find no information on what he did regarding email servers. Perhaps if Hillary had spent more time upgrading the network and email servers instead of implementing her own system we wouldn't be having this conversation. But, we all know why she did it and it wasn't for convenience.

I have not defended Petreaus for what he did in providing the Classified notebooks to Broadwell. In fact, he should not have even had the notebooks in his possession. My point is that Hillary deserved the same or more punishment than he did. However, I do believe Petreaus is an honorable man in spite of his very human mistake(s). Hillary has not an honorable bone in her body as proven over multiple years of scandal after scandal. No, there is no right vast right wing conspiracy. She did it all by herself...

 

[The Don]

That was my point. From this issue then, the lesson is that the head of every Department in the Executive Branch needs to use a private server? amiright?

Way to not answer the question

Lest anyone forget, here is the exchange:

At least Hillary used a private server, which was apparently more secure than the State Dept's., since there's no evidence it was ever hacked. Unlike State's.

You don't know any of this to be fact. Prove it, if you do.

Of which, that the State Department was hacked - in which case wikileaks is your answer - or that Hillary's was not hacked - in which case how do you provide evidence that something was not hacked

Which part of quadraginta's comment did you want supported with evidence, that the State Department server was hacked or that Hillary's was not ?

 

[Reheat]

Which part of quadraginta's comment did you want supported with evidence, that the State Department server was hacked or that Hillary's was not ?

It should be noted that your handle does not seem to be quadranginta, but none the less.

I'm sure you already know that not every hacking success necessarily leaves evidence. But, you want to argue about it anyway, obviously...

If your objective is to highlight the inability to prove a negative then you win. On the other hand there is no way in hell that one can prove her private email server was not hacked.

My original point is that Hillary was Secretary of State. The head mfwic. If she had devoted as much effort as she did to her private server to hide her activities, the Official State Department system just might have been more secure. Enough off topic crap...

 

[uke2se]

It should be noted that your handle does not seem to be quadranginta, but none the less.

I'm sure you already know that not every hacking success necessarily leaves evidence. But, you want to argue about it anyway, obviously...

If your objective is to highlight the inability to prove a negative then you win. On the other hand there is no way in hell that one can prove her private email server was not hacked.

My original point is that Hillary was Secretary of State. The head mfwic. If she had devoted as much effort as she did to her private server to hide her activities, the Official State Department system just might have been more secure. Enough off topic crap...

Right. I'm still wondering how doing the same thing - according to you - makes one person a hero and the other a whore.

 

[The Don]

It should be noted that your handle does not seem to be quadranginta, but none the less.

I'm sure you already know that not every hacking success necessarily leaves evidence. But, you want to argue about it anyway, obviously...

If your objective is to highlight the inability to prove a negative then you win. On the other hand there is no way in hell that one can prove her private email server was not hacked.

My original point is that Hillary was Secretary of State. The head mfwic. If she had devoted as much effort as she did to her private server to hide her activities, the Official State Department system just might have been more secure. Enough off topic crap...

How is this off topic ?

quadraginta made the point that, despite being a "cowboy" server it would appear that Hillary's server was more secure than the State Department's and contrasted that with "honourable" David Petraeus who deliberately handed classified material over to his mistress. You asked for evidence, I was trying to find out about what you wanted evidence for, that the State Department had been hacked or Hillary had not.

You've now moved the goalposts and claimed that the next scandal is that Hillary failed to ensure that the State Department's email systems were secure. What a shock

The whole purpose of this thread was to highlight the glaring hypocrisy of the GOP in general and the Trump administration in particular.

A man who handed classified material to his mistress, took a plea deal and is currently on parole is "honourable" and deserves a seat at the heart of government whereas a woman against whom there is insufficient evidence of wrongdoing to even prosecute much less convict and who has been criticised for her husband's infidelity is far worse.

Attempts to highlight the facts in the Petaeus case are portrayed as a "witch hunt"