monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

This was in response to the following post by builder;


It is not irrelevant at all to reasonable people interested in the whole truth of the matter. It, however, clearly is irelevant (and threatening) with respect to the bit of propaganda you wish to insert in the conversation.

The most obvious connection is that, given the evident fact of the Russian hacking of the DNC e mail server, recently reported in unusual detail by the DNI, following the President's outraged reaction, we must conclude that the Russians also hacked other equally unsecure (and more valuable) sources, including the unsecured private e mail server Hillary Clinton used during and after her service as Secretary of State. Based on earlier reports by investigating agencies, we now know that, despite her many deceitful denials, there were numerous instances of classified information, some Top Secrtet, and some Special Top Secret Compartmented Information on her server.

Both the President and some Intelligence officials close to him previously reported that there was no damage done to national security by Hillary's illicit use of a private, unsecured server for her official communications. This appears to fly in the face of the recent reports of the hacking of the relatively unimportant, from a security perspective, of the e mail communications of the DNC. It appears they owe the public some explanation of this connection, though I doubt we will get it from this administration, which appears chiefly interested in protecting itself, and not the national interest.

The DNC is not part of the US Government and neither the RNC or DNC has their computer security handled by the Government.

Also, the government continues to work on cyber security.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/684616/dod-invites-vetted-specialists-to-hack-the-pentagon

There has certainly not been any serious concern about this possibility; I don't think I've seen a single reputable journalist or commentator raise it. But it's easy to overestimate how much attention regular people pay to the nuances of what is claimed to have been hacked in which way. All most of them pick up on is lots of talk about how 'the election was hacked'. Political predispositions, bias and wishful thinking does the rest: a YouGov poll last month revealed that 50% of Clinton voters think it's probably or definitely true that "Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected President".

HRC was having trouble drawing flies, so this 50% is probably or definitely
20%. Polls revealed that the vast majority of Americans just didn't like HRC.

I hope the German government figures out a way to put a stop to this "fake news". I know nothing will be done in the US. It's getting harder to figure out what's real and what's propaganda.

I think we chatted about this type of information giving earlier when we were talking about sources and how they portray facts. This is another perfect example of what we were talking about.

Left leaning sources are going to try to leave it at "the election was hacked! " without giving much insight as to what was hacked and how the hacking actually influenced the election.

The right tries to focus on how the hacking was not on the ballot boxes and ignores the fact that it influenced the election at all, because there isn't actually any way to tell how much it did.

I hope the Germans figure out a way to deal with all of those muslims destroying their country.

I agree and never suggested otherwise. Both were determined to have even fewer security features than those of most modern corporations, and both were easy targets for the Russians and anyone else. Indeed my central point is that, given our government's apparently certain determination that the DNC 's mail server was hacked by the Russians, and the fact that Hillary's use of a private server for he e mail comunications as Secretary of state was widely known in government circles and also likely known by Russian intelligence, the probability that they didn't also hack and monitor Hillary's e mailsd as Secretary of State is quite negligible, indeed a likely certainty in any intelligence assessment.. This is an obvious question the Administrtion hasn't yet addressed.

I don't think there is any way to defend Hillary for her handling of classified material. Even a peon like me, an E4, with a TSC knew better.

Assuming she operated unilaterally, which she clearly didn't.

Each person with a TSC knows all the rules and regulations, and the penalties.

Did they all get labelled as "careless" then? Or just her?

Why ask me? I'm not personally aware of anyone I worked with was sloppy with classified info.

Any Military official who put his official communications on an unsecured server for several years and during thsat time allowed Top Secret and Sepcial Top Secret compartmented intelligence on an unsecured network, and then lied abour it would get several years in Prision

Are you personally aware of anyone who has been charged?
Those are the rules and regulations I mentioned earlier. The FBI does a background check on anyone that's going to be assigned working with classified material.

I'm aware of the results of several Military Courts Martial trials for similar things. That's the basis for what I wrote.

That was part of her loss of support among the electorate; knowing that she rides above the law, going into an election, was never a good look.

That was a mystery, because I believe Hillary is a smart person.