Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy
#61
(05-25-2016, 04:16 PM)Odin Wrote: Many of Hillary's supporters remind me a lot of Trump's supporters, authoritarian follower types who insist that their shit-covered Dear Leader smells wonderful and attack anyone who says otherwise.

In addition to calling someone's choice of candidate a "shit-covered Dear leader," you have used every innuendo, outright lie, and Right wingnut meme to attack her.  And when someone points out just how imbecilic your claims, you whine  "authoritarian."

While it is apparent that you can't seem to correctly apply that big word you have learned, I will still suggest you try something a tad more complicated and look up the two-word terms of "cognitive dissonance" and "psychological projection."  I'm sure you'll wind up with the same level of misuse as your current big word, but one can always hold out some hope even for you.

Oh, and if that doesn't work, maybe look up and consider the thought -

"If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."
Reply
#62
(05-25-2016, 10:32 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Clinton's guilty and is a known felon now.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/25/politics/s...index.html

Hell, her email hacker just plead guilty, that means she's guilty. If she has some sort of "official" reason for not being guilty, that's fucked up.  Sorry, but everyone's the same or should be under the law. If that's not the case, then fuck it. It's now time to have the system just crash and burn. A system  with 2 rules, one for proles and one for fatcats is not worthy of survival.  May it crash and burn!   Damn it all.  Clinton's a no good lying sack of shit.  May her and her rapist hubby just die already! Rats and roaches are far more worthy of biomass than those two no good, lying motherfuckers.

Go away now, you bitch.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015...riminal-c/


I have listened to all the reports about this, and I heard of noone being arrested over this. Nor is there anything in your cnn link to this effect. Washington Times is a right wing rag, and it's them who "cannot be trusted."

This story is just part of the pattern of her being private to avoid media investigations which are distorted by the right wing. She took the wrong approach and she should be open and transparent instead. But that is all this is about.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#63
(05-24-2016, 02:48 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(05-24-2016, 10:24 AM)playwrite Wrote: No, intentionally releasing classified information is a criminal offense.

Perhaps, but admitting to unintentionally releasing classified information reveals a degree of incompetence that is unacceptable in very low level Non-Commissioned Officers.
Hate to bust your ignorance bubble, but it happens all the time.  That's particularly true when someone sends you unmarked information that they are broadcasting to other personal emails, and it is even more so when the material in question would not have been classified at the time but only retrospectively, years later .

And most importantly, exactly what information did she release prior to, and required by, this dust-up?


Quote:Kinser79
Quote:playwrite
There are several problems for boneheads like yourself in claiming Clinton's criminality - 

First, and foremost, why would she intentionally release classified information

If classified information is on that server, and she put it there I have every reason to expect that she intended for that classified information to be on that server.  That or she's too stupid to even be running for president.  You can take your pick.
Well, there you go, dummy, the emails were sent to her, i.e., others "put it there"; so from your logic, none of those people should be running for President -  psss, they're not.

Quote:Kinser79
Quote:
Quote:playwrite
- do you now believe that she too is a Kenyan Muslim Fascist Commie bred and raised since birth to takeaway your freedom fries?  Or is it simply that she's a woman and only a t-bagger, with a dick, like yourself, can be in the White House. 

Non-sequitor since I never bought into the whole birther thing.  The rest of of it is  pure ad hominum which leads me to believe you have no argument...no I know you have no argument.

Your claim was criminality, and I pointed out that "intent" is required.  You refused to tell us what you believe would be her intent; I'm just filling-in with the usual bagger explanation because, well, you're a bagger.  If you got some other brilliant insight on her motivation, please share - its probable is at least as hilarious as her being a Kenyan Muslim Fascist Commie; you guys always surprise me.  Rolleyes


Quote:Kinser79
Quote:
Quote:playwrite

Then there's the problems that she didn't send the emails and they were not marked to her as being classified.

Irrelevant.  Any information that she had or has that could conceivably be classified, including oral communication, should be treated as if it is classified.  I hope your investing is better than your lawyer-ing or you'll be looking for a nice new box when the bubble on the stock market pops.

It would seem the fundamental problem here is you don't know how emails work.  You can have the best spam filter on the market but that doesn't stop those actual Kenyans from sending you emails on how much money you can make if you just give them your bank account numbers.   By your logic, you are responsible for all such spam and we should all flay you!  You live in a weird world, Kinser.

Quote:Kinser 79
Quote:
Quote:playwrite
Most of the emails in question were sent to others with even less security (e.g., Hotmail);

Doesn't matter.  If the emails in question were entirely personal in nature then there was offense.  But should just one email contain governmental business she'll have definitely have problems with the Library of Congress even if no laws were broken.  And of course that speaks to a level of incompetence that makes her unsuitable to be president.

First, being in trouble with the Library is not criminality - glad to see you've backed off your original dufus claim.   Rolleyes

Second, it is clear that previous SoSs, NSAs, and likely countless government workers both sent and received emails with classified information, particularly information that was not classified at the time.  Basically, your claim is the entire government is incompetent, and that just further seals the deal that your just another typical t-bagger.

Quote:Kinser79
Quote:
Quote:can you even name one person who actually sent these email?

Can you?

I'm not the one making the claim of criminality or incompetence; that would be you.  Sorry, but the fact that you can't back that up with, you know, facts, is not going to be lost in your sophomoric attempt of misdirection.

Quote:Kinser79
Quote:
Quote:playwrite
Because if you can't, this has nothing to do with any actual national security and everything to do with, like Faux News, your Clinton Hate Syndrome.

Because if you can't then this whole diatribe has nothing to do with reality, but rather your irrational hatred of Fox News (and I don't care for them either, honestly, their too far in bed with Establishment GOP), and your Clinton Hardon.  I bet her wrinkly ass gets you all hot and bothered you dirty old man!

Trying to embellish your sophomoric misdirection attempt is not going to gloss over your indifference to those who actually SENT classified information, and that your outrage is only another manifestation of just another CHDS loser.

As to getting hot and bothered, do you dream that Talking Yam's 'little man' might be just as orange? 50 shades of orange, perhaps?

Quote:Kinser79
Quote:
Quote: playwrite

The information that has now been identified as classified has been retrospectively classified

Irrelevant.  Information that was classified after the fact was supposed to be treated as classified to start with.

It's not if the classification benchmarks have changed; the information at the time would not have been classified by anyone at the time.  As for any that should have been classified at the time, it addition to the fact that it was sent to her and others' personal emails, you have the typical struggle between State and the IC about what really needs to be classified - Colin Powell has raised how ridiculous retroactive classification has become even under his watch.

Quote:Kinser79
Quote:
Quote:playwrite

- none have yet been identified that they should have been classified at the time they were sent.  That may change, but for now, you have absolutely no information to suggest otherwise.  

Myself I'm waiting for the FBI to submit the report of their investigation.  Unlike you I don't often talk from my ass and as such I'm content to go with whatever the FBI finds.  It is the AG that worries me.

Again, I'm not the one making the accusations of criminality BEFORE the FBI report comes out.  Maybe you got something plugged in your ass and that would explain why shXt is coming out of your mouth?  What an unselfaware hypocrite.

Quote:Kinser79
Quote:
Quote:playwrite

Both former SoS Colin Powell and NSA Condi Rice have also been identified as having received unsecured emails with then unmarked, but now retrospectively, classificated information.

Neither later stored those emails on unsecured servers.  A government official receiving emails from an unsecured server with information that is later classified is beyond their control.  What they do after they have received that information, however, is.

Sorry, dude, but hotmail and google accounts are no more secure than a private server; but all are probable more secure than the State Dept's email server that is generally known to leak like a colander. 


Quote:Kinser79
Quote:
Quote: Where is your outrage about that?  They seem even more likely to be Kenyan Muslim Fascist Commie bred and raised since birth to takeaway your freedom fries, don't they?

Who says I'm outraged?  Just because you can't seem to have concerns about someone running for president (which neither General Powell nor Sec. Rice are doing--and are unlikely to do) doesn't mean that everyone has to run around like a chicken with their head cut off over every little thing.

But then again I'm not surprised really.  Boomers, particularly white liberal ones, are not known for their emotional control.  I'm willing to bet that the cause of that is their GI parents never telling them to shut the hell up.

You're going around and claiming Clinton is a criminal and refusing to back it up with any facts, and I'm the one out of control???  Rolleyes  You live in a different universe that I do.

Quote:Kinser79
Quote:
Quote:playwrite

If he's so rich, why doesn't he release his tax returns?  What is he hiding?

You do understand that the IRS is auditing his returns, right?  You do understand that an audit is an investigation, right?  And you do understand that when one is under an investigation their lawyers (which I assure you Daddy has) usually tell their clients to not release anything that could be construed as evidence to the press, in fact failing to give him such advice would violate their fiduciary duty to their client.

Gad, what a suck-up apologist.  The IRS came out and said there is nothing that would prevent the Talking Yam from releasing his returns.  The guy is running for the Presidency, and his difficulties with the IRS is off-limits?

Quote:Kinser79
Quote:
Quote:Trump doesn't own most of the crapola with his name on it.  It's all about branding.

Irrelevant.  Using his name and brand under licensing agreements is quite profitable.  Or is this about you being jealous that you have neither the wealth, fame or success necessary to have your own brand.  After all the Daddy's last name is essentially the same as using short hand for being rich, and successful.

I can see how a Talking Yam that makes his money by branding and little else would impress you, but it might not be so impressive to those thinking he actually runs those endeavors.  He's a lightweight disguised by the lightweight branding world we live in.

 
Quote:Kinser 79

Quote:Having problems connecting the dots?  Let me help.  President Trump will nominate SCOTUS nominees that will be the direct opposite in legal opinions than those the President Clinton will nominate.  Is that simple enough for you? 

No I fully expect him to nominate SCOTUS justices that are the opposite of Clinton.  Honestly that would be a good thing.

Your original point was that SCOTUS justices do not get elected.  That is true on the surface.  I'm just trying to bring you up past 5th grade understanding - Presidents, who are elected, nominate the justices and a President from one Party is going to nominate someone different than one from the other Party.  Just thank me for furthering your knowledge base, and move on - there's a whole big world of dot connecting that awaits you!

Quote:Kinser79
Quote:
Quote:Trump will do whatever gives him the most applause.  The largest applause always comes just before a war gets started.  The NeoCons will convince his big hands ego that it will get the biggest stroke available to a President by sending other families' kids to war.

Not happening.  If the Neo-Cons thought that was a possibility they would be openly courting him instead of sucking up to HRC.  His positions on foreign affairs are pretty consistent from the 1980s to today.  He opposes wars of choice, he would prefer to dismantle foreign bases (we can't afford them anyway) and where foreign bases are necessary we should charge the countries where the bases are for the expense of having our military there.

Gad, I can see why you think of the Talking Yam as daddy.  Such a rube!

Quote:Kinser79
Quote:
Quote:I might say that your biggest problem is your complete dishonesty.  I might even say that you're so good at dishonesty that you obviously have some intelligence.  However, in the end, most highly dishonest people are proven to be pretty darn stupid.

Actually I've been completely honest here.  Your problem Playdude is you're completely divorced from reality.  As for the rest of it, continuous use of Ad Homs aren't helping your case.

No.  You have not only been dishonest, you've refuse to even try to argue against the dishonesty you've been nailed on.  And yes, I don't live in your dishonest world so I don't share in your 'reality.'

You're entire conjecture of Clinton's criminality is the height of ad hominem attack  - you're not understanding that is a clear example of your lack of self awareness.  Buy a clue.
Reply
#64
(05-26-2016, 01:22 PM)playwrite Wrote: Hate to bust your ignorance bubble, but it happens all the time.  That's particularly true when someone sends you unmarked information that they are broadcasting to other personal emails, and it is even more so when the material in question would not have been classified at the time but only retrospectively, years later .

Spoken like someone who has never and will never handle classified information.  Information that could reasonably considered classified, like say concerning a negotiation with a foreign power--IE the thing that the state department does which is what the Secretary of State heads--does not require a marking of being classified to be considered classified.  Being marked as classified after the fact is totally irrelevant.

Quote:Well, there you go, dummy, the emails were sent to her, i.e., others "put it there"; so from your logic, none of those people should be running for President -  psss, they're not.

If that is your line of argumentation then she did not have control over who had access to the server in question and therefore if she put any information at all on it that was classified she was either criminally negligent or incompotent.  See here is the issue, what did Hillary do.  I could care less what some moronic intern did.

Quote:Your claim was criminality, and I pointed out that "intent" is required.

Intent is not necessary to this question.  But if you want to make it one, should HRC be shown to have put classified information onto this server, which itself is illegal, then either she had to have intended to do so or she is incompetent to manage classified information and thus incompetent to be President.


Quote: You refused to tell us what you believe would be her intent

Unlike Eric, or you for that matter, I don't pretend to know the intentions of others.  I'm more concerned with what others do.

Quote:; I'm just filling-in with the usual bagger explanation because, well, you're a bagger.  If you got some other brilliant insight on her motivation, please share - its probable is at least as hilarious as her being a Kenyan Muslim Fascist Commie; you guys always surprise me.  Rolleyes

You'll excuse if me if I don't indulge your fantasies.  But I do find it hilarious that you would think a former communist is involved with the tea party not that that body really even functions as anything anymore.  I guess I should be grateful that you are at least stuck in a year that is part of the current decade, which is more than I can say for most Boomers.

Quote:It would seem the fundamental problem here is you don't know how emails work.

Never claimed to be an IT speciallist but I would suspect that one writes an email, sends it via the originating server through the internet's various networks to the receiving server.

Quote: You can have the best spam filter on the market but that doesn't stop those actual Kenyans from sending you emails on how much money you can make if you just give them your bank account numbers.   By your logic, you are responsible for all such spam and we should all flay you!  You live in a weird world, Kinser.

Says the guy who claims that Hillary Clinton is honest with 20 years of public life that says otherwise.  That being said, it seems you don't seem to understand that it isn't what others send to you that matters in this instance, it is what is done once that information has been sent.  In my case, and hopefully yours but one can never be too sure with you--you do believe that inflation can happen without consequences after all--that I happen to delete those emails usually without reading them.  Spam filters are good for that.

Quote:First, being in trouble with the Library is not criminality - glad to see you've backed off your original dufus claim.   Rolleyes

Never claimed that it was criminal.  BUT it does speak to her integrity which is only a problem for those who claim HRC has any.

Quote:Second, it is clear that previous SoSs, NSAs, and likely countless government workers both sent and received emails with classified information, particularly information that was not classified at the time.  Basically, your claim is the entire government is incompetent, and that just further seals the deal that your just another typical t-bagger.

Largely speaking the Boomer elite in the government is incompetent.  I should know having been in the Navy, which is by the way a Governmental body, I had to deal with their incompetence on a daily basis.  That being said I've only heard of General Powell and Secretary Rice receiving emails to governmental servers that were later classified.  I've not heard of them receiving those same emails to personal servers which are not under the Government's various IT protections--which at least were at the beginning of the decade staffed largely by Xers.  As usual sweeping up the messes Boomers make but I digress.  The simple fact here is that by arguing "Well, Powell received emails from places like @hotmail.com it is the same...durr." is comparing apples to patio furniture.

Quote:I'm not the one making the claim of criminality or incompetence; that would be you.

I've made no such claim.  I've stated that if there is classified information on these servers she has committed a felony.  I have made a further claim that should she admit to committing that felony, and then claim she didn't know that she had committed a felony not only is she a felon but she is also incompetent.  What matters is not the claim of competence (I already expect her to be incompetent because I've seen no evidence of competence at all) but whether a felony was committed.

In short the "I didn't know" excuse is such a non-excuse as to preclude her from being President.

Quote: Sorry, but the fact that you can't back that up with, you know, facts, is not going to be lost in your sophomoric attempt of misdirection.

No you're making a claim here that she did not commit a felony.  When we know the following facts:

1.  Hillary Clinton had a server that was not under the Federal Government's IT protections programs.
2.  Hillary Clinton used this server while she was secretary of state.
3.  Secretaries of State by the nature of their job create and receive classified information all the time.
4.  Having classified information on an unsecured server (which is what this private server was, seriously the encryption was 64,000 times weaker than for a dating website!) is a felony.
5.  Being unmarked as classified does not mean that an item is in fact not classified.

As such the only person here making an extraordinary claim here Playdude is you.  You've made the claim that there was no felony because there was no classified information on that server.  So I must conclude that you either have access to the contents of this server, or you're talking out your ass.

I think it safe to bet you're talking out your ass.

Quote:Trying to embellish your sophomoric misdirection attempt is not going to gloss over your indifference to those who actually SENT classified information,

Who sent the information classified or not is not relevant to the question of whether HRC is honest or trustworthy.  As for my embelishment...it certainly triggered you. (an other instance where an evil grin emoji would be great)

Quote:and that your outrage is only another manifestation of just another CHDS loser.

Ah name calling, always good to win an argument.  Problem is that only works on the easily triggered.  Unlike some, I have control over my emotions.

Quote:As to getting hot and bothered, do you dream that Talking Yam's 'little man' might be just as orange? 50 shades of orange, perhaps?

Personally I think Daddy should fire his stylist and make up person.  Unfortunately for you that isn't a reason to reject him as a political candidate, however, HRC being dishonest and untrustworthy are very good reasons to reject her.  People who live in glass houses should throw stones Playdude.

Quote:It's not if the classification benchmarks have changed; the information at the time would not have been classified by anyone at the time.

That would only be true if the classification benchmarks have been changed, in which case the dates become vitally important.  However, in most instances of handling classified information (which I've done, and apparently you haven't) it is readily apparent to anyone with a high school education that something that looks like it should be secret probably is.  It isn't like the US Government doesn't provide training on this sort of thing.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/12/state-...fied-docs/

I can't speak for the DOS, but the DOD has a week long course on the subject, and those who regularly handle classified information have to undergo that training annually.

Quote:Again, I'm not the one making the accusations of criminality BEFORE the FBI report comes out.  Maybe you got something plugged in your ass and that would explain why shXt is coming out of your mouth?  What an unselfaware hypocrite.

Gee...I wonder could it be this?

me in this very post Wrote:When we know the following facts:

1.  Hillary Clinton had a server that was not under the Federal Government's IT protections programs.
2.  Hillary Clinton used this server while she was secretary of state.
3.  Secretaries of State by the nature of their job create and receive classified information all the time.
4.  Having classified information on an unsecured server (which is what this private server was, seriously the encryption was 64,000 times weaker than for a dating website!) is a felony.
5.  Being unmarked as classified does not mean that an item is in fact not classified.




Quote:Sorry, dude, but hotmail and google accounts are no more secure than a private server; but all are probable more secure than the State Dept's email server that is generally known to leak like a colander. 

Again, the question is not receiving emails, it is sending them to an unsecure server.  Let us just suppose you are right and that the State Department's servers leak like a colander, for which I doubt you have any evidence for.  Then that is a problem that the State Department itself must address.  However, we are talking about classified information, which is most likely on this server in question, which is known to have encryption 64,000 times less powerful than that of a dating website.

But beyond that even the State Department itself is finding problems with Clinton's handling of classified information and conducting governmental business in unapproved and potentially unlawful ways.

A nice article from that well known Right-Wing-Rag called The Guardian


Quote:You're going around and claiming Clinton is a criminal and refusing to back it up with any facts, and I'm the one out of control???  Rolleyes

I've already presented you with facts in this very post, facts that you should have already known without me having to list them.  Facts that my seven year old niece knows.

 
Quote:You live in a different universe that I do.

I do.  It is called reality.  You wouldn't like it much.

Quote:Gad, what a suck-up apologist.  The IRS came out and said there is nothing that would prevent the Talking Yam from releasing his returns.  The guy is running for the Presidency, and his difficulties with the IRS is off-limits?

I really don't care what the IRS says.  The fact remains he's being audited and the advice of his attorneys is that he should not release his tax returns.  I don't know about where you're from, but where I'm from smart people do what their attorneys advise them to do.  Even so, the fact that he has tax returns indicates that he pays taxes and releasing these returns is not a requirement to being president.  The practice started with Nixon of all people.  Probably as a political ploy of some sort.

When Daddy is president his tax returns are a matter of public record, his tax returns as a candidate are the records of a private citizen until such time as he becomes President and he is under no obligation to release those tax returns by law. So even if he was hiding something silly like "not being as rich as he claims to be" as if that were a bar to the Presidency it all will come out eventually.

Quote:I can see how a Talking Yam that makes his money by branding and little else would impress you, but it might not be so impressive to those thinking he actually runs those endeavors.  He's a lightweight disguised by the lightweight branding world we live in.

You do realize that for every ten things that he does in the business world that is branding there is one thing he does that is real business, right?  What impresses me is that he was able to turn 1 million dollars into billions of dollars and most of that BEFORE he inherited the rest of the fortune.  The man has real entrepreneurial spirit.  I kind of hope the Trump family doesn't experience the shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations phenomenon.



Quote:Your original point was that SCOTUS justices do not get elected.  That is true on the surface.  I'm just trying to bring you up past 5th grade understanding - Presidents, who are elected, nominate the justices and a President from one Party is going to nominate someone different than one from the other Party.  Just thank me for furthering your knowledge base, and move on - there's a whole big world of dot connecting that awaits you!

You're really pathetic.  I think you've confused my complaint about an oversight by the framers of the constitution with a lack of understanding how the constitution works.  I knew you're bad at reading comprehension and critical thinking but this is a serious problem, it seems you can't read forum posts written in on a third grade level!

The fact is that Trump appointing persons who would be the complete opposite of the persons Clinton would appoint is a good thing.  An absence of activist judges on the court would be great, as would a stricter interpretation of the Constitution.  It would go a long way to pulling up some of the weeds that have grown in the foundations of the Republic.

That being said, I do still think that subjecting SCOTUS justices to at least retention votes (as happens in many states) would be a fundamentally good idea.

Quote:Gad, I can see why you think of the Talking Yam as daddy.  Such a rube!

Translation:  I have no argument so insert ad hom.

Quote:No.  You have not only been dishonest, you've refuse to even try to argue against the dishonesty you've been nailed on.  And yes, I don't live in your dishonest world so I don't share in your 'reality.'

First, I've not been dishonest here.  Second, you've not nailed me for any dishonesty--which is impossible due to me not being dishonest.  Kind of how honesty and dishonesty work you know.  Third, so you're admitting you don't live in reality.  

Quote:You're entire conjecture of Clinton's criminality is the height of ad hominem attack  - you're not understanding that is a clear example of your lack of self awareness.  Buy a clue.

Yes, it is entirely an ad hom attack to speculate that the Secretary of State receives and issues classified information that is going to an unsecured server that has probably already been hacked YHWH knows whom and that she has other grave ethical problems based on evidence, common sense and known history.  Rolleyes

Apparently you've forgotten what the topic of this thread is...HRC and her being honest and trustworthy.  The evidence for her being either, much less for both, is exceedingly thin and you're left calling me, and anyone else who isn't a Hillary Bot names and calling the GOP Nominee Yam head (or whatever...I seriously can't be bothered to keep up with your insults toward Daddy).
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#65
(05-26-2016, 11:05 AM)playwrite Wrote:
(05-25-2016, 04:16 PM)Odin Wrote: Many of Hillary's supporters remind me a lot of Trump's supporters, authoritarian follower types who insist that their shit-covered Dear Leader smells wonderful and attack anyone who says otherwise.

In addition to calling someone's choice of candidate a "shit-covered Dear leader," you have used every innuendo, outright lie, and Right wingnut meme to attack her.  And when someone points out just how imbecilic your claims, you whine  "authoritarian."

While it is apparent that you can't seem to correctly apply that big word you have learned, I will still suggest you try something a tad more complicated and look up the two-word terms of "cognitive dissonance" and "psychological projection."  I'm sure you'll wind up with the same level of misuse as your current big word, but one can always hold out some hope even for you.

Oh, and if that doesn't work, maybe look up and consider the thought -

"If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Thanks for proving my point. I have a psych degree, so I know perfectly well what Projection and Cognitive Dissonance is, and you suffer from both. You are the worst kind of simple-minded political partisan.
Reply
#66
Liberal Boomers like playwrite have always disliked national sovereignty. Guess what, Xers and Millies are not going to allow our rights to be taken away from us. We're not going to acquiesce to being subjected to control by some international forum. We will not allow our State and military to be subsumed into some global defense force.
Reply
#67
(05-26-2016, 03:22 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(05-26-2016, 01:22 PM)playwrite Wrote: Hate to bust your ignorance bubble, but it happens all the time.  That's particularly true when someone sends you unmarked information that they are broadcasting to other personal emails, and it is even more so when the material in question would not have been classified at the time but only retrospectively, years later .

Spoken like someone who has never and will never handle classified information.  Information that could reasonably considered classified, like say concerning a negotiation with a foreign power--IE the thing that the state department does which is what the Secretary of State heads--does not require a marking of being classified to be considered classified.  Being marked as classified after the fact is totally irrelevant.

Quote:Well, there you go, dummy, the emails were sent to her, i.e., others "put it there"; so from your logic, none of those people should be running for President -  psss, they're not.

If that is your line of argumentation then she did not have control over who had access to the server in question and therefore if she put any information at all on it that was classified she was either criminally negligent or incompotent.  See here is the issue, what did Hillary do.  I could care less what some moronic intern did.

Quote:Your claim was criminality, and I pointed out that "intent" is required.

Intent is not necessary to this question.  But if you want to make it one, should HRC be shown to have put classified information onto this server, which itself is illegal, then either she had to have intended to do so or she is incompetent to manage classified information and thus incompetent to be President.


Quote: You refused to tell us what you believe would be her intent

Unlike Eric, or you for that matter, I don't pretend to know the intentions of others.  I'm more concerned with what others do.

Quote:; I'm just filling-in with the usual bagger explanation because, well, you're a bagger.  If you got some other brilliant insight on her motivation, please share - its probable is at least as hilarious as her being a Kenyan Muslim Fascist Commie; you guys always surprise me.  Rolleyes

You'll excuse if me if I don't indulge your fantasies.  But I do find it hilarious that you would think a former communist is involved with the tea party not that that body really even functions as anything anymore.  I guess I should be grateful that you are at least stuck in a year that is part of the current decade, which is more than I can say for most Boomers.

Quote:It would seem the fundamental problem here is you don't know how emails work.

Never claimed to be an IT speciallist but I would suspect that one writes an email, sends it via the originating server through the internet's various networks to the receiving server.

Quote: You can have the best spam filter on the market but that doesn't stop those actual Kenyans from sending you emails on how much money you can make if you just give them your bank account numbers.   By your logic, you are responsible for all such spam and we should all flay you!  You live in a weird world, Kinser.

Says the guy who claims that Hillary Clinton is honest with 20 years of public life that says otherwise.  That being said, it seems you don't seem to understand that it isn't what others send to you that matters in this instance, it is what is done once that information has been sent.  In my case, and hopefully yours but one can never be too sure with you--you do believe that inflation can happen without consequences after all--that I happen to delete those emails usually without reading them.  Spam filters are good for that.

Quote:First, being in trouble with the Library is not criminality - glad to see you've backed off your original dufus claim.   Rolleyes

Never claimed that it was criminal.  BUT it does speak to her integrity which is only a problem for those who claim HRC has any.

Quote:Second, it is clear that previous SoSs, NSAs, and likely countless government workers both sent and received emails with classified information, particularly information that was not classified at the time.  Basically, your claim is the entire government is incompetent, and that just further seals the deal that your just another typical t-bagger.

Largely speaking the Boomer elite in the government is incompetent.  I should know having been in the Navy, which is by the way a Governmental body, I had to deal with their incompetence on a daily basis.  That being said I've only heard of General Powell and Secretary Rice receiving emails to governmental servers that were later classified.  I've not heard of them receiving those same emails to personal servers which are not under the Government's various IT protections--which at least were at the beginning of the decade staffed largely by Xers.  As usual sweeping up the messes Boomers make but I digress.  The simple fact here is that by arguing "Well, Powell received emails from places like @hotmail.com it is the same...durr." is comparing apples to patio furniture.

Quote:I'm not the one making the claim of criminality or incompetence; that would be you.

I've made no such claim.  I've stated that if there is classified information on these servers she has committed a felony.  I have made a further claim that should she admit to committing that felony, and then claim she didn't know that she had committed a felony not only is she a felon but she is also incompetent.  What matters is not the claim of competence (I already expect her to be incompetent because I've seen no evidence of competence at all) but whether a felony was committed.

In short the "I didn't know" excuse is such a non-excuse as to preclude her from being President.

Quote: Sorry, but the fact that you can't back that up with, you know, facts, is not going to be lost in your sophomoric attempt of misdirection.

No you're making a claim here that she did not commit a felony.  When we know the following facts:

1.  Hillary Clinton had a server that was not under the Federal Government's IT protections programs.
2.  Hillary Clinton used this server while she was secretary of state.
3.  Secretaries of State by the nature of their job create and receive classified information all the time.
4.  Having classified information on an unsecured server (which is what this private server was, seriously the encryption was 64,000 times weaker than for a dating website!) is a felony.
5.  Being unmarked as classified does not mean that an item is in fact not classified.

As such the only person here making an extraordinary claim here Playdude is you.  You've made the claim that there was no felony because there was no classified information on that server.  So I must conclude that you either have access to the contents of this server, or you're talking out your ass.

I think it safe to bet you're talking out your ass.

Quote:Trying to embellish your sophomoric misdirection attempt is not going to gloss over your indifference to those who actually SENT classified information,

Who sent the information classified or not is not relevant to the question of whether HRC is honest or trustworthy.  As for my embelishment...it certainly triggered you. (an other instance where an evil grin emoji would be great)

Quote:and that your outrage is only another manifestation of just another CHDS loser.

Ah name calling, always good to win an argument.  Problem is that only works on the easily triggered.  Unlike some, I have control over my emotions.

Quote:As to getting hot and bothered, do you dream that Talking Yam's 'little man' might be just as orange? 50 shades of orange, perhaps?

Personally I think Daddy should fire his stylist and make up person.  Unfortunately for you that isn't a reason to reject him as a political candidate, however, HRC being dishonest and untrustworthy are very good reasons to reject her.  People who live in glass houses should throw stones Playdude.

Quote:It's not if the classification benchmarks have changed; the information at the time would not have been classified by anyone at the time.

That would only be true if the classification benchmarks have been changed, in which case the dates become vitally important.  However, in most instances of handling classified information (which I've done, and apparently you haven't) it is readily apparent to anyone with a high school education that something that looks like it should be secret probably is.  It isn't like the US Government doesn't provide training on this sort of thing.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/12/state-...fied-docs/

I can't speak for the DOS, but the DOD has a week long course on the subject, and those who regularly handle classified information have to undergo that training annually.

Quote:Again, I'm not the one making the accusations of criminality BEFORE the FBI report comes out.  Maybe you got something plugged in your ass and that would explain why shXt is coming out of your mouth?  What an unselfaware hypocrite.

Gee...I wonder could it be this?

me in this very post Wrote:When we know the following facts:

1.  Hillary Clinton had a server that was not under the Federal Government's IT protections programs.
2.  Hillary Clinton used this server while she was secretary of state.
3.  Secretaries of State by the nature of their job create and receive classified information all the time.
4.  Having classified information on an unsecured server (which is what this private server was, seriously the encryption was 64,000 times weaker than for a dating website!) is a felony.
5.  Being unmarked as classified does not mean that an item is in fact not classified.




Quote:Sorry, dude, but hotmail and google accounts are no more secure than a private server; but all are probable more secure than the State Dept's email server that is generally known to leak like a colander. 

Again, the question is not receiving emails, it is sending them to an unsecure server.  Let us just suppose you are right and that the State Department's servers leak like a colander, for which I doubt you have any evidence for.  Then that is a problem that the State Department itself must address.  However, we are talking about classified information, which is most likely on this server in question, which is known to have encryption 64,000 times less powerful than that of a dating website.

But beyond that even the State Department itself is finding problems with Clinton's handling of classified information and conducting governmental business in unapproved and potentially unlawful ways.



A nice article from that well known Right-Wing-Rag called The Guardian


Quote:You're going around and claiming Clinton is a criminal and refusing to back it up with any facts, and I'm the one out of control???  Rolleyes

I've already presented you with facts in this very post, facts that you should have already known without me having to list them.  Facts that my seven year old niece knows.

 
Quote:You live in a different universe that I do.

I do.  It is called reality.  You wouldn't like it much.

Quote:Gad, what a suck-up apologist.  The IRS came out and said there is nothing that would prevent the Talking Yam from releasing his returns.  The guy is running for the Presidency, and his difficulties with the IRS is off-limits?

I really don't care what the IRS says.  The fact remains he's being audited and the advice of his attorneys is that he should not release his tax returns.  I don't know about where you're from, but where I'm from smart people do what their attorneys advise them to do.  Even so, the fact that he has tax returns indicates that he pays taxes and releasing these returns is not a requirement to being president.  The practice started with Nixon of all people.  Probably as a political ploy of some sort.

When Daddy is president his tax returns are a matter of public record, his tax returns as a candidate are the records of a private citizen until such time as he becomes President and he is under no obligation to release those tax returns by law. So even if he was hiding something silly like "not being as rich as he claims to be" as if that were a bar to the Presidency it all will come out eventually.

Quote:I can see how a Talking Yam that makes his money by branding and little else would impress you, but it might not be so impressive to those thinking he actually runs those endeavors.  He's a lightweight disguised by the lightweight branding world we live in.

You do realize that for every ten things that he does in the business world that is branding there is one thing he does that is real business, right?  What impresses me is that he was able to turn 1 million dollars into billions of dollars and most of that BEFORE he inherited the rest of the fortune.  The man has real entrepreneurial spirit.  I kind of hope the Trump family doesn't experience the shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations phenomenon.



Quote:Your original point was that SCOTUS justices do not get elected.  That is true on the surface.  I'm just trying to bring you up past 5th grade understanding - Presidents, who are elected, nominate the justices and a President from one Party is going to nominate someone different than one from the other Party.  Just thank me for furthering your knowledge base, and move on - there's a whole big world of dot connecting that awaits you!

You're really pathetic.  I think you've confused my complaint about an oversight by the framers of the constitution with a lack of understanding how the constitution works.  I knew you're bad at reading comprehension and critical thinking but this is a serious problem, it seems you can't read forum posts written in on a third grade level!

The fact is that Trump appointing persons who would be the complete opposite of the persons Clinton would appoint is a good thing.  An absence of activist judges on the court would be great, as would a stricter interpretation of the Constitution.  It would go a long way to pulling up some of the weeds that have grown in the foundations of the Republic.

That being said, I do still think that subjecting SCOTUS justices to at least retention votes (as happens in many states) would be a fundamentally good idea.

Quote:Gad, I can see why you think of the Talking Yam as daddy.  Such a rube!

Translation:  I have no argument so insert ad hom.

Quote:No.  You have not only been dishonest, you've refuse to even try to argue against the dishonesty you've been nailed on.  And yes, I don't live in your dishonest world so I don't share in your 'reality.'

First, I've not been dishonest here.  Second, you've not nailed me for any dishonesty--which is impossible due to me not being dishonest.  Kind of how honesty and dishonesty work you know.  Third, so you're admitting you don't live in reality.  

Quote:You're entire conjecture of Clinton's criminality is the height of ad hominem attack  - you're not understanding that is a clear example of your lack of self awareness.  Buy a clue.

Yes, it is entirely an ad hom attack to speculate that the Secretary of State receives and issues classified information that is going to an unsecured server that has probably already been hacked YHWH knows whom and that she has other grave ethical problems based on evidence, common sense and known history.  Rolleyes

Apparently you've forgotten what the topic of this thread is...HRC and her being honest and trustworthy.  The evidence for her being either, much less for both, is exceedingly thin and you're left calling me, and anyone else who isn't a Hillary Bot names and calling the GOP Nominee Yam head (or whatever...I seriously can't be bothered to keep up with your insults toward Daddy).


Let me just hit the highlights of your idiocy -

- 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.  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.

   --- 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.  Tongue  

- 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.  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 again, for criminality, they would have to show intention to purposefully release; even you can't come up with any credible intentionally.  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?

- 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.
Reply
#68
[quote pid='1663' dateline='1464294143']
Quote:No you're making a claim here that she did not commit a felony.  When we know the following facts:

1.  Hillary Clinton had a server that was not under the Federal Government's IT protections programs.
2.  Hillary Clinton used this server while she was secretary of state.
3.  Secretaries of State by the nature of their job create and receive classified information all the time.
4.  Having classified information on an unsecured server (which is what this private server was, seriously the encryption was 64,000 times weaker than for a dating website!) is a felony.
5.  Being unmarked as classified does not mean that an item is in fact not classified.

OK, let's for the sake of equality before the law do this.
Please have the state department and Hillary forward all emails in question to me. Since she claims that all of the stuff on her email server isn't that important national security wise , that shouldn't be a problem, right?   Next, I can forward those on to Wikileaks since I don't want to waste space on my computer with that stuff.

Quote:As such the only person here making an extraordinary claim here Playdude is you.  You've made the claim that there was no felony because there was no classified information on that server.  So I must conclude that you either have access to the contents of this server, or you're talking out your ass.

Of course if it's not a felony for her, then it can't possibly be a felony for me since I won't be obtaining the emails via hacking.

I
Quote:Trying to embellish your sophomoric misdirection attempt is not going to gloss over your indifference to those who actually SENT classified information,

OK, then I can feel free to claim I as the employer of all .gov employees a a duly noted taxpayer to get said emails, right?
Always remember and never forget, Rags can be just as egotistical and demanding as any regular Boomer.  That's what cusps are all about, don't you know? Cool

Quote:Who sent the information classified or not is not relevant to the question of whether HRC is honest or trustworthy.  As for my embelishment...it certainly triggered you. (an other instance where an evil grin emoji would be great)

No, I'm claiming equality before the law. I'm not sure what Kinser is claiming.  I'm claiming that I'm due all rights and privileges as my employees.  .Gov should be thanking its lucky stars I'm not in some high office. I'd do stuff like replace Congress critters' platinum healthcare with Obamacare,  stick all .gov employees on a 401K, and institute they don't get special holidays.  They'd get the exact same set as a McDonald's worker.

Quote:
Quote:and that your outrage is only another manifestation of just another CHDS loser.

Ah name calling, always good to win an argument.  Problem is that only works on the easily triggered.  Unlike some, I have control over my emotions.

Yeah, I admit it.  Jealousy works that way.

Quote:
Quote:As to getting hot and bothered, do you dream that Talking Yam's 'little man' might be just as orange? 50 shades of orange, perhaps?

Nawww. It all comes down to strict fairness. I of course demand I , as boss, get the same due as my subordinates.

Quote:Personally I think Daddy should fire his stylist and make up person.  Unfortunately for you that isn't a reason to reject him as a political candidate, however, HRC being dishonest and untrustworthy are very good reasons to reject her.  People who live in glass houses should throw stones Playdude.

Quote:It's not if the classification benchmarks have changed; the information at the time would not have been classified by anyone at the time.

That's a red herring for Rags. I just should have been emailed the stuff before it got classified.  No harm, no foul.
I'm assuming that ex post facto is still operative.

Quote:That would only be true if the classification benchmarks have been changed, in which case the dates become vitally important.  However, in most instances of handling classified information (which I've done, and apparently you haven't) it is readily apparent to anyone with a high school education that something that looks like it should be secret probably is.  It isn't like the US Government doesn't provide training on this sort of thing.

They do as I recall.  Maybe you can sign on to getting said emails as well.

Quote:http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/12/state-...fied-docs/


I can't speak for the DOS, but the DOD has a week long course on the subject, and those who regularly handle classified information have to undergo that training annually.

Well, Kinser, if we're both getting the emails as we should as employers, then it's not our fault if we get stuff we should not have gotten because someone didn't get the training down.

Quote:Again, I'm not the one making the accusations of criminality BEFORE the FBI report comes out.  Maybe you got something plugged in your ass and that would explain why shXt is coming out of your mouth?  What an unselfaware hypocrite.

Playwrite, you're a man of means, right.  Why not sign up for the Rags right as employer and get those emails as well? Jestercolor

Quote:
me in this very post Wrote:When we know the following facts:

1.  Hillary Clinton had a server that was not under the Federal Government's IT protections programs.
2.  Hillary Clinton used this server while she was secretary of state.
3.  Secretaries of State by the nature of their job create and receive classified information all the time.
4.  Having classified information on an unsecured server (which is what this private server was, seriously the encryption was 64,000 times weaker than for a dating website!) is a felony.
5.  Being unmarked as classified does not mean that an item is in fact not classified.




Quote:Sorry, dude, but hotmail and google accounts are no more secure than a private server; but all are probable more secure than the State Dept's email server that is generally known to leak like a colander. 

It's the same as my email.  So some famous words: "What difference does it make?" Big Grin   If Hillary can have those emails on her box, then we can have 'em on ours.

Quote:Again, the question is not receiving emails, it is sending them to an unsecure server.  Let us just suppose you are right and that the State Department's servers leak like a colander, for which I doubt you have any evidence for.  Then that is a problem that the State Department itself must address.  However, we are talking about classified information, which is most likely on this server in question, which is known to have encryption 64,000 times less powerful than that of a dating website.

But beyond that even the State Department itself is finding problems with Clinton's handling of classified information and conducting governmental business in unapproved and potentially unlawful ways.


Again, we can demand we get CC'd.

Quote:A nice article from that well known Right-Wing-Rag called The Guardian


Quote:You're going around and claiming Clinton is a criminal and refusing to back it up with any facts, and I'm the one out of control???  Rolleyes

I've already presented you with facts in this very post, facts that you should have already known without me having to list them.  Facts that my seven year old niece knows.

 
Quote:You live in a different universe that I do.

I do.  It is called reality.  You wouldn't like it much.

Quote:Gad, what a suck-up apologist.  The IRS came out and said there is nothing that would prevent the Talking Yam from releasing his returns.  The guy is running for the Presidency, and his difficulties with the IRS is off-limits?

I really don't care what the IRS says.  The fact remains he's being audited and the advice of his attorneys is that he should not release his tax returns.  I don't know about where you're from, but where I'm from smart people do what their attorneys advise them to do.  Even so, the fact that he has tax returns indicates that he pays taxes and releasing these returns is not a requirement to being president.  The practice started with Nixon of all people.  Probably as a political ploy of some sort.

When Daddy is president his tax returns are a matter of public record, his tax returns as a candidate are the records of a private citizen until such time as he becomes President and he is under no obligation to release those tax returns by law. So even if he was hiding something silly like "not being as rich as he claims to be" as if that were a bar to the Presidency it all will come out eventually.


[/quote]

I think he's waiting for a mutual exchange myself.  He'll release his tax stuff when the Clinton Foundation releases whatever Trump wants.
[/quote]
<snip>  Long post.
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#69
(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.

 
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.

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.  Tongue

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#70
(05-26-2016, 03:31 PM)Odin Wrote:
(05-26-2016, 11:05 AM)playwrite Wrote:
(05-25-2016, 04:16 PM)Odin Wrote: Many of Hillary's supporters remind me a lot of Trump's supporters, authoritarian follower types who insist that their shit-covered Dear Leader smells wonderful and attack anyone who says otherwise.

In addition to calling someone's choice of candidate a "shit-covered Dear leader," you have used every innuendo, outright lie, and Right wingnut meme to attack her.  And when someone points out just how imbecilic your claims, you whine  "authoritarian."

While it is apparent that you can't seem to correctly apply that big word you have learned, I will still suggest you try something a tad more complicated and look up the two-word terms of "cognitive dissonance" and "psychological projection."  I'm sure you'll wind up with the same level of misuse as your current big word, but one can always hold out some hope even for you.

Oh, and if that doesn't work, maybe look up and consider the thought -

"If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Thanks for proving my point. I have a psych degree, so I know perfectly well what Projection and Cognitive Dissonance is, and you suffer from both. You are the worst kind of simple-minded political partisan.

Let's try again, Odin:   you attack someone's candidate of choice, that someone points out the fallacies of your attack, and you call the counter as 'authoritarian'  because, well, screw facts and logic, you're right because you're right and the other person is just a meany authoritarian because he disagrees with you.  Funny.

But what's really funny is you now believe this is an example of the other's projection.  It classic.  You should re-take that class and bring this exchange as a great example - I'm sure it will be fun for you.  Rolleyes
Reply
#71
(05-26-2016, 09:46 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [quote pid='1663' dateline='1464294143']
Quote:No you're making a claim here that she did not commit a felony.  When we know the following facts:

1.  Hillary Clinton had a server that was not under the Federal Government's IT protections programs.
2.  Hillary Clinton used this server while she was secretary of state.
3.  Secretaries of State by the nature of their job create and receive classified information all the time.
4.  Having classified information on an unsecured server (which is what this private server was, seriously the encryption was 64,000 times weaker than for a dating website!) is a felony.
5.  Being unmarked as classified does not mean that an item is in fact not classified.

OK, let's for the sake of equality before the law do this.
Please have the state department and Hillary forward all emails in question to me. Since she claims that all of the stuff on her email server isn't that important national security wise , that shouldn't be a problem, right?   Next, I can forward those on to Wikileaks since I don't want to waste space on my computer with that stuff.

Quote:As such the only person here making an extraordinary claim here Playdude is you.  You've made the claim that there was no felony because there was no classified information on that server.  So I must conclude that you either have access to the contents of this server, or you're talking out your ass.

Of course if it's not a felony for her, then it can't possibly be a felony for me since I won't be obtaining the emails via hacking.

I
Quote:Trying to embellish your sophomoric misdirection attempt is not going to gloss over your indifference to those who actually SENT classified information,

OK, then I can feel free to claim I as the employer of all .gov employees a a duly noted taxpayer to get said emails, right?
Always remember and never forget, Rags can be just as egotistical and demanding as any regular Boomer.  That's what cusps are all about, don't you know? Cool

Quote:Who sent the information classified or not is not relevant to the question of whether HRC is honest or trustworthy.  As for my embelishment...it certainly triggered you. (an other instance where an evil grin emoji would be great)

No, I'm claiming equality before the law. I'm not sure what Kinser is claiming.  I'm claiming that I'm due all rights and privileges as my employees.  .Gov should be thanking its lucky stars I'm not in some high office. I'd do stuff like replace Congress critters' platinum healthcare with Obamacare,  stick all .gov employees on a 401K, and institute they don't get special holidays.  They'd get the exact same set as a McDonald's worker.

Quote:
Quote:and that your outrage is only another manifestation of just another CHDS loser.

Ah name calling, always good to win an argument.  Problem is that only works on the easily triggered.  Unlike some, I have control over my emotions.

Yeah, I admit it.  Jealousy works that way.

Quote:
Quote:As to getting hot and bothered, do you dream that Talking Yam's 'little man' might be just as orange? 50 shades of orange, perhaps?

Nawww. It all comes down to strict fairness. I of course demand I , as boss, get the same due as my subordinates.

Quote:Personally I think Daddy should fire his stylist and make up person.  Unfortunately for you that isn't a reason to reject him as a political candidate, however, HRC being dishonest and untrustworthy are very good reasons to reject her.  People who live in glass houses should throw stones Playdude.

Quote:It's not if the classification benchmarks have changed; the information at the time would not have been classified by anyone at the time.

That's a red herring for Rags. I just should have been emailed the stuff before it got classified.  No harm, no foul.
I'm assuming that ex post facto is still operative.

Quote:That would only be true if the classification benchmarks have been changed, in which case the dates become vitally important.  However, in most instances of handling classified information (which I've done, and apparently you haven't) it is readily apparent to anyone with a high school education that something that looks like it should be secret probably is.  It isn't like the US Government doesn't provide training on this sort of thing.

They do as I recall.  Maybe you can sign on to getting said emails as well.

Quote:http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/12/state-...fied-docs/


I can't speak for the DOS, but the DOD has a week long course on the subject, and those who regularly handle classified information have to undergo that training annually.

Well, Kinser, if we're both getting the emails as we should as employers, then it's not our fault if we get stuff we should not have gotten because someone didn't get the training down.

Quote:Again, I'm not the one making the accusations of criminality BEFORE the FBI report comes out.  Maybe you got something plugged in your ass and that would explain why shXt is coming out of your mouth?  What an unselfaware hypocrite.

Playwrite, you're a man of means, right.  Why not sign up for the Rags right as employer and get those emails as well? Jestercolor

Quote:
me in this very post Wrote:When we know the following facts:

1.  Hillary Clinton had a server that was not under the Federal Government's IT protections programs.
2.  Hillary Clinton used this server while she was secretary of state.
3.  Secretaries of State by the nature of their job create and receive classified information all the time.
4.  Having classified information on an unsecured server (which is what this private server was, seriously the encryption was 64,000 times weaker than for a dating website!) is a felony.
5.  Being unmarked as classified does not mean that an item is in fact not classified.




Quote:Sorry, dude, but hotmail and google accounts are no more secure than a private server; but all are probable more secure than the State Dept's email server that is generally known to leak like a colander. 

It's the same as my email.  So some famous words: "What difference does it make?" Big Grin   If Hillary can have those emails on her box, then we can have 'em on ours.

Quote:Again, the question is not receiving emails, it is sending them to an unsecure server.  Let us just suppose you are right and that the State Department's servers leak like a colander, for which I doubt you have any evidence for.  Then that is a problem that the State Department itself must address.  However, we are talking about classified information, which is most likely on this server in question, which is known to have encryption 64,000 times less powerful than that of a dating website.

But beyond that even the State Department itself is finding problems with Clinton's handling of classified information and conducting governmental business in unapproved and potentially unlawful ways.


Again, we can demand we get CC'd.

Quote:A nice article from that well known Right-Wing-Rag called The Guardian


Quote:You're going around and claiming Clinton is a criminal and refusing to back it up with any facts, and I'm the one out of control???  Rolleyes

I've already presented you with facts in this very post, facts that you should have already known without me having to list them.  Facts that my seven year old niece knows.

 
Quote:You live in a different universe that I do.

I do.  It is called reality.  You wouldn't like it much.

Quote:Gad, what a suck-up apologist.  The IRS came out and said there is nothing that would prevent the Talking Yam from releasing his returns.  The guy is running for the Presidency, and his difficulties with the IRS is off-limits?

I really don't care what the IRS says.  The fact remains he's being audited and the advice of his attorneys is that he should not release his tax returns.  I don't know about where you're from, but where I'm from smart people do what their attorneys advise them to do.  Even so, the fact that he has tax returns indicates that he pays taxes and releasing these returns is not a requirement to being president.  The practice started with Nixon of all people.  Probably as a political ploy of some sort.

When Daddy is president his tax returns are a matter of public record, his tax returns as a candidate are the records of a private citizen until such time as he becomes President and he is under no obligation to release those tax returns by law. So even if he was hiding something silly like "not being as rich as he claims to be" as if that were a bar to the Presidency it all will come out eventually.

Quote:I think he's waiting for a mutual exchange myself.  He'll release his tax stuff when the Clinton Foundation releases whatever Trump wants.

<snip>  Long post.

[/quote]

Hey Rags,

That was a difficult post to work through; I'm having trouble with formatting as well.  There's got to be a simpler way.  Dodgy

Anyway, what do you see is different between someone sending an email with unmarked classified information to an SoS personal email address on: the State Dept's personal email server; third-party account like Hotmail; or the SoS private server?

All of those things have happen with at least 6 SoS, including the current one.  Should they all go to jail?  If not, please explain the difference.
Reply
#72
(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.  Tongue

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.
Reply
#73
Kinser is a "former" commie now? Does that mean he could become a "former" knocker of new age and hippie interests too? Here's hoping some day! Kinser has proven that miraculous changes can happen to him Smile

What seems amazing is that he could be converted by the Big Daddy Flim Flam Artist. Or just to avoid supporting Hillary. My goodness, what effects the CHDS can have on people!
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#74
What I really wanted to post here about, though, was the charge allegedly made by the state department review released this week that Hillary somehow kept secret her decision to use a private email server, rather than ask permission, because she thought permission would be denied.

What I can't fathom is how she could keep her email address a secret. No-one in the State Dept. sends emails to each other, or sees any? I find that hard to believe. If the State Dept. really wanted Sec. Clinton to stop using her own server, they could have asked her not to. No-one did. So why is this official crying about it now?
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#75
The NYT article notes that the IG report undermined Clinton’s previous statements.
However, my personal concern is the Top Secret emails. No one , other than the FBI,has the facts on this , so we must(or should) wait for the FBI report. Until then most of the comments are just opinions and speculation.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/...inks-click

… "The report, delivered to members of Congress, undermined some of Mrs. Clinton’s previous statements defending her use of the server “…

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/pol....html?_r=0

… "The report did not delve deeply into the issue that has become the focus of the F.B.I.’s investigation — the references in dozens of emails to classified information, including 22 emails that the C.I.A. said contained information on programs or sources that were “top secret.” It nonetheless called into question the risks of using a private system for what were clearly sensitive discussions of the nation’s foreign policy.”  …
 … whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Reply
#76
rags Wrote:
Playwrite Wrote:Hey Rags,

That was a difficult post to work through; I'm having trouble with formatting as well.  There's got to be a simpler way.  Dodgy

Yes, it's messy. Hopefully, I cleaned out most of the cruft.

Quote:Anyway, what do you see is different between someone sending an email with unmarked classified information to an SoS personal email address on: the State Dept's personal email server; third-party account like Hotmail; or the SoS private server?

All of those things have happen with at least 6 SoS, including the current one.  Should they all go to jail?  If not, please explain the difference.

That's of course a legitimate question so here goes:

Actually, I'm easy to please. I'm fine with 2 options.

1. The State department can send me copies of the emails. They can redact portions which were originally classified or got that way ex post facto that reside or have resided on secured platforms and:
2. I should get un redacted copies of any email from any SoS what wound up on an insecure location.  That fixes the problem of whether somebody was incompetent or had /has an ego problem.

Or

1. Any government employee current or past needs to go to jail for compromising classified information due to ignoring standard protocols.

Ehnnn.. While I'm at it, I have a whole slew of reforms.

All government employees need to forfeit their platinum healthcare plans and be on Obamacare like me, their employer:
That includes a brother in law who works for the USDA. I'm not letting family off the hook. 

All military from the Joints Chiefs of Staff down shall go to a randomly chosen VA center. I had a Vietnam vet cousin and 3 WWII vet uncles, so that reform is in memory of them on this Memorial day Holiday. I think this reform is the best way to light a fire under the VA's sorry ass.

All government employees [Federal/state/local] shall have their pension plans be an 401K just like us proles have. That should fix some pension plan shortfalls.

All government employees shall have exactly the same recognized holidays as us proles.

All government employees shall be subject to a new dress code. Suits and fancy ladies' wear is hereby forbidden. Jeans and T-shirts are to be worn while at work and official business. Jean Jackets and parkas are fine for cooler weather. Clean cut hairstyles are also forbidden. Mohawks, died hair, dread locks, and/or  shoulder length hair are to be worn by both sexes. Cool
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#77
(05-27-2016, 12:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Kinser is a "former" commie now?

Yes. I'm confident that the material conditions that necessitate Marxism-Leninism are no longer in play. Also I have had several "Gavin McInnis" moments the past year or so. At present I would describe myself as a classical liberal with anarchist tendencies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rrtttOCtq8

Video explains it all.

Quote:Does that mean he could become a "former" knocker of new age and hippie interests too?

Nope. If one wants to be counter-culture these days one puts on a blue suit with a nice tie and votes Republican. Bonus points for being a racial minority and liking to have sex with people who have the same genitals as your own.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#78
(05-27-2016, 04:34 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
rags Wrote:
Playwrite Wrote:Hey Rags,

That was a difficult post to work through; I'm having trouble with formatting as well.  There's got to be a simpler way.  Dodgy

Yes, it's messy. Hopefully, I cleaned out most of the cruft.

Quote:Anyway, what do you see is different between someone sending an email with unmarked classified information to an SoS personal email address on: the State Dept's personal email server; third-party account like Hotmail; or the SoS private server?

All of those things have happen with at least 6 SoS, including the current one.  Should they all go to jail?  If not, please explain the difference.

That's of course a legitimate question so here goes:

Actually, I'm easy to please. I'm fine with 2 options.

1. The State department can send me copies of the emails. They can redact portions which were originally classified or got that way ex post facto that reside or have resided on secured platforms and:
2. I should get un redacted copies of any email from any SoS what wound up on an insecure location.  That fixes the problem of whether somebody was incompetent or had /has an ego problem.

Only if you also insist in getting all the emails of every government worker that used a 3rd party email service (e.g., Hotmail) or hacked government system.  You'll have to go through what needs to be classified, but there's little doubt its there (if you actually read the IG report, you would know this).

Imagine what you would learn about 9/11, the role of the Saudis, Iraq WMD, the invasion, bin Laden at Tora Bora, ect., ect from just Colin Powell's and Condi Rice's emails!

I'd might suggest with such knowledge you would soon be found 6 feet under the ground.  However, you would first be so far buried under billions of emails, you would never be found.


Quote:Or

1. Any government employee current or past needs to go to jail for compromising classified information due to ignoring standard protocols.

- and effectively eliminate the federal government.

Where have I heard before that "we had to burn the village to save it"??? Dodgy
[/quote]
Reply
#79
Here's a fairly-balanced Forbes article that points out the IG report actually says nothing new and in fact likely validates Clinton's assertion she did nothing wrong  WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE IG's TASK.  It points out that security issues were not the purview of the IG; they were requested by the FBI to not address that.  

What it also makes clear is those that so quickly used the IG report to bludgeon Clinton are just mindless Clinton Hate Derangement Syndrome and not much interested in reality if it doesn't support their disease.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefe...cd85202c7d

Quote:State Department Report On Email Vindicates Clinton Rather Than Nails Her

The report released Wednesday by the State Department Inspector General on its email records management is being reported as heavy-duty criticism of former Secretary Hillary Clinton. However, the report has more in it that vindicates Clinton than nails her.

It does not add any new serious charges or adverse facts. And, it shows she was less out of line with her predecessors, notably Colin Powell, than has been charged. Powell’s handling of his email was so similar, in fact, that when House Republicans drag this issue through hearings up to Election Day, Powell should be called as a witness – a witness for Clinton. To put it differently, she is having a double standard applied to her. Here are five key aspects of the report.

First, and foremost, it is simply not about classified email. It is about regular, ordinary, run-of-the-mill, unclassified email. Yet it is the classified email, not these messages, that are the focus of the FBI investigation of Clinton. In other words, the report does not, and cannot, talk about the most serious issues. It is about a sideshow. If you are serious about the email charges against Hillary, you should keep your powder dry until at least Clinton is interviewed by the FBI in a matter of weeks, and then until the result of that probe is released.

Moreover, it is no accident that this report does not deal with the most serious issues: The FBI expressly told the State Department IG to stay away from classified records. That would have involved the State Department IG interfering with and possibly foreshadowing the FBI criminal investigation. But, this meant the FBI left the State Department IG with a subject involving much less grounds for potential criticism of Clinton, as we see in this report.

Second, there is not that much new information about Clinton in it. Certainly, the widely-reported fact that it’s an 83-page report makes it sound like it is big. But half is appendices. Half of the rest is not about the Secretary’s emails, but about cybersecurity. Of the two-dozen pages that are even remotely about Secretaries’ emails, a lot is taken up by retracing the dreary history of records and archival policy. The remainder involves all the secretaries going back two decades – not just Clinton and Powell, who are alike, but also ones of no particular interest, like Madeleine Albright, Condoleeza Rice, and also John Kerry. There’s just not a lot of new facts about Clinton.

Look at the press coverage. You will not find mentions of major new facts in the IG report.

Third, where the report does add to our knowledge, is about Colin Powell, who served from 2001-2005. Powell did all his email business on a private account. All of his emails on official business were apparently in a private account. It is not clear why a great deal of what is said against Clinton’s emails, could not be said against Powell’s. Moreover, Powell’s similar practices can hardly be blamed on his being a novice about security. He not only had been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he had been National Security Adviser. He had jurisdiction over all the intelligence agencies. Since Powell, with unimpeachable security credentials, felt fine using private email for official business, why are we climbing all over Clinton? It is, to be blunt, a double standard.

Fourth, the big criticism in the report is regarding the failure to print and file email in a retrievable way. But as the report shows, the Office of the Secretary of State has rarely succeeded in doing that. They either always have better things to do, or it is not a high enough priority, or there are technical difficulties, or turnover. Very likely a stingy Congress does not want to hire enough personnel to have crews doing that throughout the government. In any event, they rarely get that done. Since that is a general problem, why pin it particularly on Clinton?

Fifth, to the extent that she is criticized because “she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act,” the report is making a legal judgment that is not particularly strong. Note how she is not labeled as violating any statute, but rather, a real mouthful of mush – “the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.” So we are talking about obscure, dull, bureaucratic policies. Not a criminal statute. Not even a civil statute – just the bureaucratic policies.

A report that says so little new against Clinton, amounts to a vindication.

[quote]

I return you to your seething hatred and on your knees praying for an FBI report that will validate you.  You might also want to brush up on your thinking that the FBI is in the tank because that's likely all you're going to have left.
Reply
#80
playwrite Wrote:Only if you also insist in getting all the emails of every government worker that used a 3rd party email service (e.g., Hotmail) or hacked government system.  You'll have to go through what needs to be classified, but there's little doubt its there (if you actually read the IG report, you would know this).

Oh, I'm sure if they wanted to they can add my IP address as an authorized destination and I'd be glad to have HIllary's sysadmin set me up.

Quote:Imagine what you would learn about 9/11, the role of the Saudis, Iraq WMD, the invasion, bin Laden at Tora Bora, ect., ect from just Colin Powell's and Condi Rice's emails!

That wouldn't be much different than general Betrayus's whore who got state secrets.  Btw, I think general Betrayus should be locked up in the brig for life since he's more senior ranking than say Chelsea Manning. What's good for the gander (Manning) should be handed down in spades to the [should have been a cooked goose] Betrayus.  Right there , since Betryus just got a wrist slap means something is really fucked up and rotten in the *Deep State.

Quote:I'd might suggest with such knowledge you would soon be found 6 feet under the ground.  However, you would first be so far buried under billions of emails, you would never be found.

OK, I'll trade.  I'll withdraw my humble request in exchange for know too much Betrayus's whore getting droned to death. Big Grin
Quote:
Rags Wrote:1. Any government employee current or past needs to go to jail for compromising classified information due to ignoring standard protocols.

-
Quote:and effectively eliminate the federal government.

If the whole of the federal government is setting a double standard, yes indeed, it needs to crash and burn.  I'll take a reset over that level of widespread banana republic style of corruption.  Hell, if what you say is true, then Castro or even Maduro are angles compared to the *Deep State.

Quote:Where have I heard before that "we had to burn the village to save it"??? Dodgy

Yup, it's the same as my use of the word, "reset". It's the forest fire principle. Forest fires clear out all the deadwood like the US barnacled over bureaucracy we have now so green shoots can emerge. Besides most folks here know how much Rags likes fire.

Ragnarök  :  multi entrande  for the ancient Nordic 4T eddas, a analogy  for the forest fire principle, a reference to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis,  one who uses the term has Nordic blood, corruption always leads to disaster.

*Deep State Dodgy  :   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/deep-state/ 

OMG! Huffingpost, that filthy conservative rag has all sorts of articles indicting the Deep State. Tongue






"The Deep State don't mean dung to me".



---Value Added Cool
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  What if the FBI is on to Hillary Clinton? nebraska 0 490 01-06-2018, 07:26 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Africans are being sold at Libyan slave markets. Thanks, Hillary Clinton. nebraska 0 426 12-31-2017, 08:36 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Bill Clinton's lonely, one-man effort to win white working-class voters Dan '82 1 966 11-13-2016, 03:23 PM
Last Post: Anthony '58
  Bernie Plans To Fight Against Hillary's Corporatist Cabinet Picks taramarie 0 828 10-28-2016, 07:52 PM
Last Post: taramarie
  Yes, Hillary Clinton is still winning. And yes, the media is lying to you. naf140230 25 8,247 09-30-2016, 07:27 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Millennials Have Cooled on Hillary Clinton, Forcing a Campaign Reset Dan '82 33 13,237 09-23-2016, 07:06 AM
Last Post: Anthony '58
  What will happen if Clinton is elected President MillsT_98 44 13,523 09-14-2016, 11:09 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  These 2 polls on how Hispanics feel about Trump and Clinton may surprise you Dan '82 1 908 09-01-2016, 09:13 AM
Last Post: Anthony '58
  Jill Stein On Why Trump AND Clinton Are Dangerous taramarie 16 7,995 08-22-2016, 03:54 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  BREAKING: Clinton Campaign Floored As Wikileaks Releases Hillary’s Financial Ties To taramarie 7 4,260 08-05-2016, 03:48 PM
Last Post: Ragnarök_62

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)