This article marks the commencement of the Daily Focus and Perspectives Blog, intended to expose, analyze, and focus prevailing topics of interest from a different perspective.
Currently, the US is undergoing one of the most bizarre, intricate, and shameful Presidential elections within its history resulting, in part, to the advancement of communication technology (e.g. emails, social media) which facilitates information sharing while also exposing it to vulnerabilities.
This uncovering compounds the abundantly clear notion that HRC and her team continue to demonstrate their inability to maintain information security as a result of a variety of activities such as the usage of an unsecured personal server, the use of multiple computer and mobile devices that do not implement appropriate cyber security protocols, and the lack of experienced and knowledgeable IT personnel that should have known that the email in question was a Phishing attack. Why should this issue receive FOCUS?
As noted by FBI Director Comey during the televised public indictment of HRC in July 2016:
It was "possible” that hostile foreign governments had gained access to Mrs. Clinton’s personal account.
Incidentally, Wikileaks released a Clinton e-mail transmitted on or about January 2011 where Justin Cooper--Clinton's Aide who established the e-mail server--replied to an inaccessibility email inquiry from Huma Abedin with the following response:
We were attacked again so I shut it down for a few min.
In other words, not only was hostile access "possible", it was likely "probable" based on the qualification that the server was "attacked again". Considering that said e-mail was generated around the beginning of 2011 and the server was examined around the beginning of 2015, there are at least four years where the server was probably breached and contents compromised.
This type of activity is contrarian to the accepted security protocols maintained by the DoD's Defense Security Service which list, in part, the following disqualifiers which would result in the revocation of a Security Clearance:
Guideline J: Criminal conduct
Allegations or admissions of criminal conduct with or without charges being pressed. Conviction for a serious crime or multiple lesser crimes.
Guideline K: Security violations“Unauthorized disclosure of classified information.” Deliberate security violations. Multiple violations. Negligence.
Notwithstanding one's party affiliations or inclinations toward supporting or opposing HRC, here's an alternative perspective: HRC and her staff engaged in activity which vitiates the criteria regarding security clearances. The revocation of the clearance does not even necessitate formal criminal charges levied against the person in question, it only requires that the record substantiates that the guidelines were violated.
Under that perspective, one could argue that she does not qualify for a security clearance, therefore, how can she be allowed to run for president?
