Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy

[TnT]

The "where there's smoke there's fire" argument really isn't very convincing in this environment. It seems clear that the Republican establishment has tried about everything they can do to pin something on the Clintons. Repeating these allegations over and over and over again doesn't produce the "smoke".

What I don't hear from either Galen or Kinser are specifics. Hey, I get it ... people just have a viceral reaction to the woman. I get it ... Trump and his demonstrated lack of character makes me sick to my stomach.

So, fellows, give us the worst three, in your estimaton, of definite, proven, Hillary lies/dishonesties. It would be cool if you could actually document them ... with credible sources, not Breitbart or Faux News.

Then, lets line those up with Cheney/Bush lies that cost hundreds of thousands of innocents their lives ...

And perhaps the Trump-ism where he defames John McCain ...

[radind]

(05-21-2016, 06:23 PM)TnT Wrote: The "where there's smoke there's fire" argument really isn't very convincing in this environment. It seems clear that the Republican establishment has tried about everything they can do to pin something on the Clintons.  Repeating these allegations over and over and over again doesn't produce the "smoke".

What I don't hear from either Galen or Kinser are specifics.  Hey, I get it ... people just have a viceral reaction to the woman.  I get it ... Trump and his demonstrated lack of character makes me sick to my stomach.

So, fellows, give us the worst three, in your estimaton, of definite, proven, Hillary lies/dishonesties.  It would be cool if you could actually document them ... with credible sources, not Breitbart or Faux News.

Then, lets line those up with Cheney/Bush lies that cost hundreds of thousands of innocents their lives ...

And perhaps the Trump-ism where he defames John McCain ...

This is the only item with potential to affect Clinton. No one except Clinton and possibly the FBI actually know what happened. I am waiting on the  FBI report and hope that it is released before the national conventions.

Quote:Hillary Clinton Emails Held Info Beyond Top Secret: IG
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hill...ig-n499886

 "Emails from Hillary Clinton's home server contained information classified at levels higher than previously known, including a level meant to protect some of the most sensitive U.S. intelligence, according to a document obtained by NBC News.
In a letter to lawmakers, the intelligence community’s internal watchdog says some of Clinton’s emails contained information classified Top Secret/Special Access Program, a secrecy designation that includes some of the most closely held U.S. intelligence matters.”…

[TnT]

Just out of curiosity, has ANY information been put forth that suggests that these alleged top secrets got loose? And if so, what were they, and how do they compare to the hacked information from the plethora of servers that have been penetrated over the last couple years?

In other words, has any real harm been suffered, or is this just another witchhunt by the Republicans?

[radind]

(05-21-2016, 06:42 PM)TnT Wrote: Just out of curiosity, has ANY information been put forth that suggests that these alleged top secrets got loose?  And if so, what were they, and how do they compare to the hacked information from the plethora of servers that have been penetrated over the last couple years?

In other words, has any real harm been suffered, or is this just another witchhunt by the Republicans?

The situation is that no one outside has any way of knowing. It appears to me that this investigation is not being done by Republicans , so calling it a witch hunt has no basis. You are asking for information that only the FBI has access to. There is no point in making claims on either side. The best approach now is to be patient and wait for the FBI report. Anything else is just piling noise on noise.

[radind]

My concern is the potential lack of control of information classified higher than Top Secret. This type information is so closely held and protected because of potential damage to US. And, there is no way for anyone having access to discuss it with anyone not read into the system.
Back to the fact that we can only wait for the FBI report. I would like a better source for this, but have not found one so far.

Quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified...ted_States

Classified information in the United States

… "The paradigms for these two categories, SCI originating in the intelligence community and SAP in the Department of Defense, addresses two key logistical issues encountered in the day-to-day control of classified information:
Individuals with a legitimate need to know may not be able to function effectively without knowing certain Top Secret facts about their work. However, granting all such individuals a blanket DoD clearance (often known as a "collateral" clearance) at the Top Secret level would be undesirable, not to mention prohibitively expensive.
The government may wish to limit certain types of sensitive information only to those who work directly on related programs, regardless of the collateral clearance they hold. Thus, even someone with a collateral DoD Top Secret clearance cannot gain access unless it is specifically granted.
SAP and SCI implementation are roughly equivalent, and it is reasonable to discuss their implementation as one topic. For example, SAP material needs to be stored and used in a facility much like the SCIF described below.”…

… "Personnel who require knowledge of SCI or SAP information fall into two general categories:
Persons with a need to know
Persons with actual access
Access to classified information is not authorized based on clearance status. Access is only permitted to individuals after determining they have a need to know. Need-to-know is a determination that an individual requires access to specific classified information in the performance of (or assist in the performance of) lawful and authorized government functions and duties.
To achieve selective separation of program information while still allowing full access to those working on the program, a separate compartment, identified by a unique codeword, is created for the information. This entails establishing communication channels, data storage, and work locations (SCIF—Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility), which are physically and logically separated not only from the unclassified world, but from general Department of Defense classified channels as well.
Thus established, all information generated within the compartment is classified according to the general rules above. However, to emphasize that the information is compartmented, all documents are marked with both the classification level and the codeword (and the caveat “Handle via <compartment name> Channels Only.”,”…
… "A person is granted access to a specific compartment after the individual has: (a) had a Single Scope Background Investigation similar to that required for a collateral Top Secret clearance; {b) been "read into" or briefed on the nature and sensitivity of the compartment; and © signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).
The individual then has access to all information in the compartment, regardless of its classification (and assuming a need to know). However, access does not extend to any other compartment; i.e., there is no single “SCI clearance” analogous to DoD collateral Top Secret.”…

[Eric the Green]

One thing that has been pointed out, is that the Secretary of State's office was subject to hacking, but Mrs. Clinton's server was not. Which was really more secure?

[Kinser79]

(05-21-2016, 08:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: One thing that has been pointed out, is that the Secretary of State's office was subject to hacking, but Mrs. Clinton's server was not. Which was really more secure?

Eric, since I already know you're delusional I won't ask that obvious question.

The email server was listed as clintonemail.com.  Now I don't have to be some hacker to think with a domain name like that it may involve the Clintons and it may involve email and therefore would be worth hacking.  Furthermore we have no evidence that the server was not hacked as it appears HRC is doing all in her power to destroy the evidence as we speak.  Therefore considering she was Sec of State, and considering that this is public knowledge it is probable that someone who wished to hack her server probably did.  

The State Department's servers come under attack every day as does the DoD's (the latter receiving a minimum of 100k attacks a day--and the DoD has a pretty good record of stopping hacks in their tracks--btw that is public knowledge so I'm not divulging any of the probably obsolete state secrets I know about).  

And that doesn't even get into the fact that information that would under normal circumstances be classified should be treated as if it were classified, including oral communication, there is no telling what state secrets ended up in the hands of those who don't have the US's interests in mind.

(Never-minding the obvious that being told to HRC herself, in the first place, probably jeopardized national security anyway.)

[Ragnarök_62]

(05-18-2016, 12:49 PM)playwrite Wrote: For those interested in amygdala-dominated 'thinking,' here we have several posters providing excellent examples.

Speaking of which, we have some amygdala dominated authoritarians about.  Why did General Betrayus get off , but Chesea Manning, Edward Snowden, and Julian Assange are being harangued by false charges [like Clinton] ?


Above is a real amygdala dominated authoritarian for ya.  What a slimeball. Even rattlesnakes' and lizards' amygdalae don't go off as much as this luser's.   He should rename himself as Mr. Cottonmouth!

[radind]

(05-21-2016, 08:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: One thing that has been pointed out, is that the Secretary of State's office was subject to hacking, but Mrs. Clinton's server was not. Which was really more secure?

That is not the question if TS/SAP info was improperly handled. That is just a diversion from the investigation of proper or improper handling of highly classified info.
Wait for the FBI.

[Eric the Green]

(05-21-2016, 10:33 PM)radind Wrote:

(05-21-2016, 08:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: One thing that has been pointed out, is that the Secretary of State's office was subject to hacking, but Mrs. Clinton's server was not. Which was really more secure?

That is not the question if TS/SAP info was improperly handled. That is just a diversion from the investigation of proper or improper handling of highly classified info.
Wait for the FBI.

I don't know what "TS/SAP info" refers to.

[Galen]

(05-21-2016, 11:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't know what "TS/SAP info" refers to.

This alone disqualifies you from having an intelligent opinion on this subject.

In the interest of enlightening you, which I consider to be a recreational impossibility, I will tell you what it means. TS/SAP stands for Top Secret/Special Access Program.

[Kinser79]

(05-21-2016, 10:33 PM)radind Wrote:

(05-21-2016, 08:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: One thing that has been pointed out, is that the Secretary of State's office was subject to hacking, but Mrs. Clinton's server was not. Which was really more secure?

That is not the question if TS/SAP info was improperly handled. That is just a diversion from the investigation of proper or improper handling of highly classified info.
Wait for the FBI.

I don't want to be that guy, but the FBI is just as political as any other governmental entity. Even if the FBI finds sufficient reason to bring criminal charges to Federal Court the AG will contest it. The only way to bring her to justice is to get Daddy elected. His AG is likely to bring criminal charges as the existence of a cover up indicates shenanigans happened.

Makes me wonder if no one ever told Shillary: It isn't the original scandal that gets people in the most trouble - it's the attempted cover-up.

[radind]

(05-21-2016, 11:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-21-2016, 10:33 PM)radind Wrote:

(05-21-2016, 08:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: One thing that has been pointed out, is that the Secretary of State's office was subject to hacking, but Mrs. Clinton's server was not. Which was really more secure?

That is not the question if TS/SAP info was improperly handled. That is just a diversion from the investigation of proper or improper handling of highly classified info.
Wait for the FBI.

I don't know what "TS/SAP info" refers to.

From my prior post related to Top Secret, Special Access Programs( 'higher than TS):

Quote:… "The paradigms for these two categories, SCI originating in the intelligence community and SAP in the Department of Defense, addresses two key logistical issues encountered in the day-to-day control of classified information:
Individuals with a legitimate need to know may not be able to function effectively without knowing certain Top Secret facts about their work. However, granting all such individuals a blanket DoD clearance (often known as a "collateral" clearance) at the Top Secret level would be undesirable, not to mention prohibitively expensive.
The government may wish to limit certain types of sensitive information only to those who work directly on related programs, regardless of the collateral clearance they hold. Thus, even someone with a collateral DoD Top Secret clearance cannot gain access unless it is specifically granted.
SAP and SCI implementation are roughly equivalent, and it is reasonable to discuss their implementation as one topic. For example, SAP material needs to be stored and used in a facility much like the SCIF described below.”…

[radind]

(05-22-2016, 02:45 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-21-2016, 10:33 PM)radind Wrote:

(05-21-2016, 08:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: One thing that has been pointed out, is that the Secretary of State's office was subject to hacking, but Mrs. Clinton's server was not. Which was really more secure?

That is not the question if TS/SAP info was improperly handled. That is just a diversion from the investigation of proper or improper handling of highly classified info.
Wait for the FBI.

I don't want to be that guy, but the FBI is just as political as any other governmental entity.  Even if the FBI finds sufficient reason to bring criminal charges to Federal Court the AG will contest it.  The only way to bring her to justice is to get Daddy elected.  His AG is likely to bring criminal charges as the existence of a cover up indicates shenanigans happened....

There are two distinct steps. First is the FBI report and I am still somewhat hopeful that we will get an honest evaluation. (However this comes out , there is no way to get a different outcome).
The second step would be  up to the AG , if any action is warranted. I would not expect any action here , even if warranted. 
However, the court of public opinion can still work. 
My basic expectation is that the FBI report will settle this one way or another for the vast majority. And , we need this to be completed before the conventions.

[Kinser79]

(05-22-2016, 07:32 AM)radind Wrote: There are two distinct steps. First is the FBI report and I am still somewhat hopeful that we will get an honest evaluation.

Then you have more hope than I do. I fully expect that if there is something there that Obama and the Democrats will pull out all the stops to supress it. The sad thing is that there are many Republicans with Neo-Con leanings who are short sighted enough to prefer Crooked Hillary over Daddy. (Don't ask me why, personally I think they've been smoking something and it probably ain't weed.)

Quote:(However this comes out , there is no way to get a different outcome).
The second step would be  up to the AG , if any action is warranted. I would not expect any action here , even if warranted. 

Obama's AG won't even if there is criminal charges that should be filed--and there should be if they find one single thing that isn't Hillary's shopping lists or wedding plans for her daughter. Government business is done on government servers by law--mostly to protect the government, but also some Freedom of Information Act stuff too. It all falls under the heading of governmental records.

Quote:However, the court of public opinion can still work. 

Maybe. Maybe not. No one has ever gone broke underestimating the American public.

Quote:My basic expectation is that the FBI report will settle this one way or another for the vast majority. And , we need this to be completed before the conventions.

That would be nice, but that would throw the Dems into a brokered convention which would be a disaster for them. Seriously they don't have anyone which is why they are running her. No matter how bad Trump's negatives are, and yes he's a flawed human being, hers are much much worse. The biggest problem that the commentariat is having with Him though is he's been in the Public Eye for nearly 40 years and they have to make stuff up about him because he will blow up the Washington Consensus and the Pols know it.

[radind]

One more for background on TS/SAP
This  article is consistent with I saw while working for the government.

Quote:http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/20...ould-know/
What everyone with a Top Secret security clearance knows – or should know

… "Classified, secure, computer systems use a variety of electronic (often generically called TEMPESTed) measures coupled with physical security (special locks, shielded conduits for cabling, armed guards) that differentiate them from an unclassified system. Some of the protections are themselves classified, and unavailable in the private sector. Such standards of protection are highly unlikely to be fulfilled outside a specially designed government facility.”…

… " if an employee were to be handed information sourced from an NSA intercept of a foreign government leader, somehow not marked as classified, she would be expected to recognize the sensitivity of the material itself and treat it as classified. In other cases, an employee might hear something sensitive and be expected to treat the information as classified. The emphasis throughout the classification system is not on strict legalities and coded markings, but on judgment. In essence, employees are required to know right from wrong. It is a duty, however subjective in appearance, one takes on in return for a security clearance.
“Not knowing” would be an unexpected defense from a person with years of government experience.”…
… "Some may say even if Clinton committed security violations, there is no evidence the material got into the wrong hands – no blood, no foul. Legally that is irrelevant. Failing to safeguard information is the issue. It is not necessary to prove the information reached an adversary, or that an adversary did anything harmful with the information for a crime to have occurred.”…

… “None of these laws, rules, regulations or standards fall under the rubric of obscure legalities; they are drilled into persons holding a security clearance via formal training (mandatory yearly for State Department employees), and are common knowledge for the men and women who handle America’s most sensitive information”…

… "A mantra inside government is that protecting America’s secrets is everyone’s job. That was the standard against which I was measured throughout my career and the standard that should apply to everyone entrusted with classified information.”

[Eric the Green]

(05-22-2016, 07:32 AM)radind Wrote:

(05-22-2016, 02:45 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-21-2016, 10:33 PM)radind Wrote:

(05-21-2016, 08:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: One thing that has been pointed out, is that the Secretary of State's office was subject to hacking, but Mrs. Clinton's server was not. Which was really more secure?

That is not the question if TS/SAP info was improperly handled. That is just a diversion from the investigation of proper or improper handling of highly classified info.
Wait for the FBI.

I don't want to be that guy, but the FBI is just as political as any other governmental entity.  Even if the FBI finds sufficient reason to bring criminal charges to Federal Court the AG will contest it.  The only way to bring her to justice is to get Daddy elected.  His AG is likely to bring criminal charges as the existence of a cover up indicates shenanigans happened....

There are two distinct steps. First is the FBI report and I am still somewhat hopeful that we will get an honest evaluation. (However this comes out , there is no way to get a different outcome).
The second step would be  up to the AG , if any action is warranted. I would not expect any action here , even if warranted. 
However, the court of public opinion can still work. 
My basic expectation is that the FBI report will settle this one way or another for the vast majority. And , we need this to be completed before the conventions.

The Obama administration does not want to cover up anything like that. Obstruction of justice and cover-up is what nailed Richard Nixon, and everyone knows it.

If Daddy is elected, however, he will find a way to get away with anything. Dictators can do that. Drumpf is a classic bully. The desire of a bully is to pick on others' perceived weaknesses in order to make yourself feel strong. That's what Drumpf does day in and day out, and that's what his candidacy is about, and what his presidency would be about. Make America Great Again by putting others down. But, that approach appeals to certain Americans.

[radind]

(05-22-2016, 04:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-22-2016, 07:32 AM)radind Wrote:

(05-22-2016, 02:45 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-21-2016, 10:33 PM)radind Wrote:

(05-21-2016, 08:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: One thing that has been pointed out, is that the Secretary of State's office was subject to hacking, but Mrs. Clinton's server was not. Which was really more secure?

That is not the question if TS/SAP info was improperly handled. That is just a diversion from the investigation of proper or improper handling of highly classified info.
Wait for the FBI.

I don't want to be that guy, but the FBI is just as political as any other governmental entity.  Even if the FBI finds sufficient reason to bring criminal charges to Federal Court the AG will contest it.  The only way to bring her to justice is to get Daddy elected.  His AG is likely to bring criminal charges as the existence of a cover up indicates shenanigans happened....

There are two distinct steps. First is the FBI report and I am still somewhat hopeful that we will get an honest evaluation. (However this comes out , there is no way to get a different outcome).
The second step would be  up to the AG , if any action is warranted. I would not expect any action here , even if warranted. 
However, the court of public opinion can still work. 
My basic expectation is that the FBI report will settle this one way or another for the vast majority. And , we need this to be completed before the conventions.

The Obama administration does not want to cover up anything like that. Obstruction of justice and cover-up is what nailed Richard Nixon, and everyone knows it....

Since so little is known or can be known by outsiders, my position is to wait for the FBI report. If this clears Clinton, then it will be best to move on to other issues.

[Kinser79]

(05-22-2016, 04:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The Obama administration does not want to cover up anything like that.

I know you're obtuse Eric but this is delving into the realm of absolute clueless-ness, I probably should not be surprised but honestly I am. You do understand that bringing Clinton up on charges practically guarantees that the Democrats will lose at least the next two elections, that the meme that "Democrats can't be trusted with the nation's security" will become permanent for a a saeculum at least.

I'm pretty sure that Obama would like the Democratic Party to win elections in the future.

Quote: Obstruction of justice and cover-up is what nailed Richard Nixon, and everyone knows it.

Yes, and is your argument that Barack Obama is not Richard Nixon so it is therefore impossible for him to obstruct justice? I mean it isn't like he has to concern himself with getting re-elected.

Quote:If Daddy is elected, however, he will find a way to get away with anything. Dictators can do that. Drumpf is a classic bully. The desire of a bully is to pick on others' perceived weaknesses in order to make yourself feel strong. That's what Drumpf does day in and day out, and that's what his candidacy is about, and what his presidency would be about. Make America Great Again by putting others down. But, that approach appeals to certain Americans.

Utter nonsense. The President, regardless of who they are is subject to the Laws of the Nation. This is true whether they are "bullies" (though I really want to know who he's bullied? A few worthless cucks? Who cares about that.) or the most milquetoast libtard you can find. The simple fact of the matter is Daddy knows how to get shit done and getting shit done is what is needed right now.

That he will break the back of the PC SJW movement and reset the GOP is icing on the cake. It is either that or complete capitulation as a nation. Seriously it is either Trump or the end of America because HRC is the kind of lunatic who would start world war 3 to distract the population from her vile corruptions.

[Eric the Green]

(05-23-2016, 12:48 AM)

Quote:Kinser79 Wrote: I'm pretty sure that Obama would like the Democratic Party to win elections in the future.

Which is why he won't obstruct justice. That would be far worse than allowing a few classified emails get onto her personal server.

Quote:Utter nonsense.  The President, regardless of who they are is subject to the Laws of the Nation.  This is true whether they are "bullies" (though I really want to know who he's bullied? A few worthless cucks?  Who cares about that.) or the most milquetoast libtard you can find.  The simple fact of the matter is Daddy knows how to get shit done and getting shit done is what is needed right now.  

He hasn't a clue about getting ANYTHING done. That is not his purpose; his purpose is fraud and deceit, and it works easily with folks who are easily deceived.

Quote:That he will break the back of the PC SJW movement and reset the GOP is icing on the cake.  It is either that or complete capitulation as a nation.  Seriously it is either Trump or the end of America because HRC is the kind of lunatic who would start world war 3 to distract the population from her vile corruptions.

No she wouldn't. Drumpf would start world war 3 with his lunatic activities, insults and temper tantrums. Drumpf is capitulating already to the GOP. You vote for Trump, and you vote for Scalia.