(05-27-2016, 12:21 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:(05-26-2016, 08:55 PM)playwrite Wrote: Let me just hit the highlights of your idiocy -
Oh this should be good. Someone who demonstrates no connection with reality is going to correct my idiocy. What is next will he pay me with some leprechaun gold too?
Quote:- Most of your confusion comes from a basic misunderstanding of how email works. YOU CAN"T CONTROL WHAT PEOPLE SEND YOU. You can filter it, but you cannot stop people sending you emails.
I believe that Ive said that about 21 times three posts back and several more in my previous post. Like I said, I'm no IT expert but I certainly know how to read Playdude. And ability you seem to lack. But then again you only emotionally respond to posts and nothing is quite as triggering as a homosexual negro who doesn't think the sun shines out of the Democratic Party's ass.
Yes, I've acknowledge that you have come around to understanding that one isn't responsible for emails other people send to your address. I realize it doesn't come close to your dream of having the Talking Yam in your hand, but do you want a virtual pat on the back from me?
But as I said, let's move on to see if I can also educate you on your other fallacies such as explaining to you the lack of difference between having said emails on State.gov, Hotmail or your own computer. Also, we'll cover your lack of understanding of criminal intentionality. Please try to stay focused and learn something.
Oh, I bolded that stuff about "homosexual" and "ass," just to note who is getting emotional. You guys are a dime-a-dozen in my line of work; I should be able to walk on eggshells and avoid your hissy fits, but you know, facts are facts, sorry if they upset you - try not to slap your SO or one of your BF(s).
Quote:
Quote: It doesn't matter if you have an address on Hotmail like other SoSs or on your own server like Clinton or on the proven leak-like-a-sieve .state.gov site --- you can't control what people send you. You seem to have accepted this, so let's move on.
The Federal Government seems to think that where the Secretary of State receives emails matters. If they didn't there wouldn't be anything for the FBI to investigate. The FBI does try to pretend it is is above the political fray even if everyone knows better.
So which is it, is the FBI (headed by a Republican) an arbiter of facts or in the tank? Or, will it depend on their conclusions? And do you still think you're fooling anyone about your t-bagger credentials?
Quote:Quote: --- Oh, by the way, here's one hit on a Google search -
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-depart...shut-down/
Quote:State Department email system hacked, shut down
---- you know a lot of ignorance can be fixed with just take a couple minutes of Googling; you should try it.
A lot of ignorance can be fixed with a few seconds of reading. The server that was hacked contained only non classified information. Anything the hackers could have possibly gotten they could have gotten far more easily through a freedom of information request.
No, as the IG report states (and most certainly the FBI report will) that is factually incorrect. Classified information has likely been included in uncounted personal emails on 3rd party email systems (e.g., Hotmail) as well as state.gov and other government email systems that other SoSs and probable most all government workers have been using up until recently. Do we throw the entire government into jail?
Quote:As for googling things, I don't seem to think you understand how debate works. When you offer up a proposition--which is what you're doing here--you need to provide evidence it isn't incumbent on those who take the contrary position to present your evidence for you.
So now I'm responsible for your willful ignorance? You're asking a lot. Remember, once your hissy fit subsides, you are the one who said that State's email system had not been hacked, and I did provide to you one (of the hundreds) of accounts that showed you were dead wrong. I'm just trying to suggest to you that a little time spent could save you the embarrassment of your general ignorance. I'm just trying to be helpful because I'm just that kind of guy that believes a more informed world is a better world.
Quote:Quote:- There is no evidence as yet that she sent any email with any classified information, marked or not. Dufus, the IG review was about the State Department meeting record preservation and they found fault under the last 6 SoSs, not just Clinton's term.
The record preservation, or lack of it, under previous Secretaries of State is not at issue when the question is HRC's honesty and trustworthiness. Maybe in your world it is perfectly acceptable for someone to rob a bank because they come from six previous generations of bank robbers. But as has been exposed previously you simply do not live in reality.
Well, there it is - a t-bagger's basic worldview that Clinton needs to be held to a higher standard. Thanks for playing, bagger.
Quote:Quote: It's the FBI investigation that is looking at the handling of classified information, and unless you're going to claim you work on that FBI team you don't know jackshXt.
And the FBI will find it. As for not knowing jackshit, that would be you since you seem to expect the top diplomat in the country to not send and receive classified information. If anything the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence is that there is not classified information on that server.
Ah, more bagginess - certitude of outcome without any, well you know, facts; and, yeeesh, the stawmen that I believe the SoS doesn't see classified information or that there wasn't any on the server (can you point to where I made those statements?). And you think you're not a bagger; maybe Google "know thyself" - just a suggestion, no hissy fit required.
Quote:Quote: And again, for criminality, they would have to show intention to purposefully release;
Okay since you have a problem with understanding intention, let us assume that there is classified information on this server, and let us assume that HRC is the one who put it there. Either A she put it on this server which has encryption security far below that of your average dating website because she is incompetent or she did it out of malice. Personally I don't care which because both speak to unfitness to be President. Also fortunately the laws concerning the handling of classified information don't care about intent either.
And again, there is of yet no evidence that Clinton "put it there" and of course, there are questions about both what "it" was (e.g. classifiable at the time, assuming no time machine) and "there" (was it any less secure than 3rd party email systems or state.gov that were used by other SoSs and most government employees - do we investigate and jail them all?)
Quote:
Quote:even you can't come up with any credible intentionally.
And I don't need to. To convict someone of murder a motive is not necessary, just the evidence that someone did in fact commit murder.
You are absolutely clueless if you believe "intent" is not an issue in any murder trail. The level of this ignorance should disqualify you as one to discuss these issues, but I am concerned about the level of hissy fit that might trigger - you might even slap someone!
Quote:Quote:And unless the government has a time machine, material that could not be classified at the time, can not be the basis for a complaint that classified information was released at that time. So, WTF, are you talking about?
Again, idiot, As I've said several times those who handle classified information, which I would assume include the Secretary of State if they'll let a 19 year old kid handle classified information (that would be me after basic training and submarine school) though I do admit the Pentagon does a much better job at training those who handle said classified information than State apparently does, is required to treat anything that looks like it might be classified, whether marked or not, including oral communications as if it were classified.
I'll give you an example that could conceivably be used for the Department of State (since it is that department we're talking about):
A communication is made to the Secretary of State via (oral communication, written letter, or email) that Country X is doing Y with it's military and that Country Z wants the US to initiate sanctions. Naturally of course the initiation of sanctions being leaked to the press or to Country X before they are implemented would be dangerous. But this communique has no classification marking. So is it classified?
Anyone with any training whatsoever in handling classified information (which I assume would include HRC since it seems that she attended at least one weekend seminar according to my Daily Caller source) knows that they should treat that information as if it is classified even though it bears no stamps or any other paraphernalia associated with being classified. It is by its nature understood to be classified until it isn't.
Nice story telling; you most have watch some of my movies. Sub duty, huh? That explains a lot. How did they handle your hissy fits?
Just like 3rd party email systems and state.gov, the server was not intended for classified information. These things also don't come with time machines to go see what will be retrospectively classified that could not be classified at the time.
There are serious questions about how government employees' and others' personal emails have contained classified information. It is a government wide issue of the use of antiquated technologies and policies and employees turning to other means to communicate; its an issue of at least two decades and several administrations. Thanks to Obama, much of the problem has now been addressed although vulnerabilities will obviously always remain.
The problem is that rather that deal with the issue as fully-functioning adults with a primary interest in our nation's securities (see Obama), many, such as yourself, really don't give a shXt about national security but instead want to use it to go after the target of their Clinton Hate Derangement Syndrome.
And that is what makes your next statement so funny -
Quote:Quote:- You are no more a commie, or even a Left leaner, than Classic Xer; no one sucking on what the Talking Yam is spraying could be. Give up the commie shtick, you're not fooling anyone.
Good to know you don't understand what the word former means. I'm not terribly surprised though.
You are a bagger.
The only question is it a shtick or you really lack self awareness to that degree - it does happen.