I have a bad feeling about 11/8

[guitar187]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=no_such_reality]Can you imagine the shit storm if Comey didn’t CYA and then Congress or the Media learned there was Clinton emails on the Weiner computer?

If it’s just unclassified missives between Huda and Clinton, that’s nobody’s business. If a single one of them is Classified, that’s the whole point. Clinton’s handling of classified info was so lax that it ended up on a computer Anthony Weiner used for sexting with a minor.

Do I think that means we should elect Trump, no.

I’ll gladly take four more years of Elon Musk’s ilk bilking the system than subjecting ourselves to egocentric trepidation of the balding Oompa.

Sadly the 66% that like neither can’t seem to look for any less unlikable out of fear that the more unlikable one will win.[/quote]

FBI sources have already acknowledged that none of the emails in question were sent by Clinton. In which case, practically speaking, there can’t really be a finding that Clinton mishandled classified information. Nor could it possibly have anything to do with the investigation into the use of her private server.

This was a purely political move on Comey’s part to issue the statement, even if it wasn’t partisan. There is no possible non-political purpose in issuing the statement. None. (Trying to appear non-political IS a political move.)[/quote]

That’s completely untrue. I’m not taking sides, but just because the email was not sent by Clinton does not mean it was not mishandled and/or has no association with her private server. That fails a basic logic test in countless scenarios.

[SK in CV]

[quote=guitar187][quote=SK in CV][quote=no_such_reality]Can you imagine the shit storm if Comey didn’t CYA and then Congress or the Media learned there was Clinton emails on the Weiner computer?

If it’s just unclassified missives between Huda and Clinton, that’s nobody’s business. If a single one of them is Classified, that’s the whole point. Clinton’s handling of classified info was so lax that it ended up on a computer Anthony Weiner used for sexting with a minor.

Do I think that means we should elect Trump, no.

I’ll gladly take four more years of Elon Musk’s ilk bilking the system than subjecting ourselves to egocentric trepidation of the balding Oompa.

Sadly the 66% that like neither can’t seem to look for any less unlikable out of fear that the more unlikable one will win.[/quote]

FBI sources have already acknowledged that none of the emails in question were sent by Clinton. In which case, practically speaking, there can’t really be a finding that Clinton mishandled classified information. Nor could it possibly have anything to do with the investigation into the use of her private server.

This was a purely political move on Comey’s part to issue the statement, even if it wasn’t partisan. There is no possible non-political purpose in issuing the statement. None. (Trying to appear non-political IS a political move.)[/quote]

That’s completely untrue. I’m not taking sides, but just because the email was not sent by Clinton does not mean it was not mishandled and/or has no association with her private server. That fails a basic logic test in countless scenarios.[/quote]

Then explain please the nexus between email found on an employees personal laptop, that were not sent by Secretary Clinton, and an investigation into what Clinton did or did not do with her server? What is the scenario that implicates Clinton in wrongdoing?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=guitar187][quote=SK in CV][quote=no_such_reality]Can you imagine the shit storm if Comey didn’t CYA and then Congress or the Media learned there was Clinton emails on the Weiner computer?

If it’s just unclassified missives between Huda and Clinton, that’s nobody’s business. If a single one of them is Classified, that’s the whole point. Clinton’s handling of classified info was so lax that it ended up on a computer Anthony Weiner used for sexting with a minor.

Do I think that means we should elect Trump, no.

I’ll gladly take four more years of Elon Musk’s ilk bilking the system than subjecting ourselves to egocentric trepidation of the balding Oompa.

Sadly the 66% that like neither can’t seem to look for any less unlikable out of fear that the more unlikable one will win.[/quote]

FBI sources have already acknowledged that none of the emails in question were sent by Clinton. In which case, practically speaking, there can’t really be a finding that Clinton mishandled classified information. Nor could it possibly have anything to do with the investigation into the use of her private server.

This was a purely political move on Comey’s part to issue the statement, even if it wasn’t partisan. There is no possible non-political purpose in issuing the statement. None. (Trying to appear non-political IS a political move.)[/quote]

That’s completely untrue. I’m not taking sides, but just because the email was not sent by Clinton does not mean it was not mishandled and/or has no association with her private server. That fails a basic logic test in countless scenarios.[/quote]Agree. Clinton is a YALE-TRAINED LAWYER who has held two high public offices. The buck stops with HER. SHE is in charge of ALL of HER staff and ALL the manipulations of the electronic communications on HER behalf that she tasked them with. SHE is where is is today because of HER negligence and/or HER purposeful non-cooperation with the FBI.

Huma and her loser scumbag “estranged spouse” will SAVE THEMSELVES FIRST …. yes, even if it means outing Clinton. Can we blame them? I’ve seen ALL of these shenanigans (and more) go down multiple times in much lower gubment agencies. It’s par for the course. The once joined-at-the-hip Clintons and the Weiners are finished.

The “fat lady” has now entered backstage, folks, where she will get a makeup touch-up and her costume adjusted. She will begin singing her sets between this coming Thursday and Saturday. Stay tuned . . .

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]Agree. Clinton is a YALE-TRAINED LAWYER who has held two high public offices. The buck stops with HER. SHE is in charge of ALL of HER staff and ALL the manipulations of the electronic communications on HER behalf that she tasked them with. SHE is where is is today because of HER negligence and/or HER purposeful non-cooperation with the FBI.

Huma and her loser scumbag “estranged spouse” will SAVE THEMSELVES FIRST …. yes, even if it means outing Clinton. Can we blame them? I’ve seen ALL of these shenanigans (and more) go down multiple times in much lower gubment agencies. It’s par for the course. The once joined-at-the-hip Clintons and the Weiners are finished.

The “fat lady” has now entered backstage, folks, where she will get a makeup touch-up and her costume adjusted. She will begin singing her sets between this coming Thursday and Saturday. Stay tuned . . .[/quote]

You should stop with this silliness and lies. Clinton cannot control everything every one of her employees does. If an employee forwards a work email to their gmail account, then opens that gmail account at home and reads the email, the boss can’t control it. Can’t.

According to the FBI, Clinton fully cooperated with their investigation. You’re a liar when you say she didn’t.

There is no logical way for email on the employees computer to implicate Clinton. None. If there is, you would have described it. But you didn’t. All you can do is tell more lies. I’ve seen you for years make outrageous claims here, based on “feelings” or what you claim to have “seen”. But these lies are beyond that. Knowing that you’re voting for a Nazi may have changed the way you think, and now you’re supporting Nazi methods. Fascism is dangerous.

[meadandale]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=ucodegen]
An individual has much smaller resources than does a large well backed organization. The problem becomes one of trying to upset the one person one vote through mis-information.[/quote]

You mean misinformation like covering Benghazi as if there really was a scandal? You mean misinformation like covering the Clinton foundation as if there really was a scandal? You mean misinformation like covering Clinton’s email server as if there really was a scandal? You mean misinformation like NOT covering the rape of a 13 year old girl by a presidential candidate as if there was no scandal? You mean misinformation like NOT covering bribes paid by the Trump foundation as if there was no scandal? You mean misinformation like covering this election as if it’s close? Yeah, the press has failed quite a bit this election cycle. The first amendment allows all that. In fact, guarantees the right to do all that. But despite all that rigging against her, Hillary Clinton is still going to be the next president. That’s how bad her opponent is.[/quote]

Rigging against her? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

[Anonymous]

What amuses me about this “email scandal” is that it is being framed as if Hillary was literally in her basement with a bunch of computers, cables, and wire cutters cutting into some government cable-box with a big red TOP SECRET label on it. And once she wired it all up she sat down at the terminal and typed the necessary cryptic codes, specifically with the intent to enable a flood of government secrets to go straight to Anthony Weiner’s pedo-webcam station.

I really doubt the Clinton – who was running an organization with tens of thousands of employees at the time – was doing her own hands-on IT work.

I really doubt that she understands much at all about how email works.

Its interesting that nobody is concerned about who actually did the IT work that allowed information to leak out. And that all of the well-funded agencies in the DoD and intelligence services, etc. did not provide any oversight.

[SK in CV]

[quote=harvey]What amuses me about this “email scandal” is that it is being framed as if Hillary was literally in her basement with a bunch of computers, cables, and wire cutters cutting into some government cable-box with a big red TOP SECRET label on it. And once she wired it all up she sat down at the terminal and typed the necessary cryptic codes, specifically with the intent to enable a flood of government secrets to go straight to Anthony Weiner’s pedo-webcam station.

I really doubt the Clinton – who was running an organization with tens of thousands of employees at the time – was doing her own hands-on IT work.

I really doubt that she understands much at all about how email works.

Its interesting that nobody is concerned about who actually did the IT work that allowed information to leak out. And that all of the well-funded agencies in the DoD and intelligence services, etc. did not provide any oversight.[/quote]

I agree with most everything you said until the end. What evidence is there that anything leaked out? The FBI has categorically said that there is no evidence that the server was ever hacked. I don’t think there’s any evidence that any emails from Clinton’s secure server were ever leaked. Unlike the DNC and State Department systems which have been hacked. Also not hacked, to the best of my knowledge, was the RNC private server, than the Bush administration used, and deleted 22 million emails in violation of federal law. Or AOL and gmail accounts, which are regularly hacked, and were used by SOS Colin Powell and SOS Condoleezza Rice. The former has now failed to turn over a single email from his tenure, despite a now 2 year old subpoena for that data.

[SK in CV]

[quote=meadandale][quote=SK in CV][quote=ucodegen]
An individual has much smaller resources than does a large well backed organization. The problem becomes one of trying to upset the one person one vote through mis-information.[/quote]

You mean misinformation like covering Benghazi as if there really was a scandal? You mean misinformation like covering the Clinton foundation as if there really was a scandal? You mean misinformation like covering Clinton’s email server as if there really was a scandal? You mean misinformation like NOT covering the rape of a 13 year old girl by a presidential candidate as if there was no scandal? You mean misinformation like NOT covering bribes paid by the Trump foundation as if there was no scandal? You mean misinformation like covering this election as if it’s close? Yeah, the press has failed quite a bit this election cycle. The first amendment allows all that. In fact, guarantees the right to do all that. But despite all that rigging against her, Hillary Clinton is still going to be the next president. That’s how bad her opponent is.[/quote]

Rigging against her? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL[/quote]

Yes, rigging against here. The fake email scandal has had more news coverage on all cable and network news shows in excess of all other issues combined. Despite it being a fake scandal. There is nothing to see. So yes. The election has been rigged far more against her than against Trump, with regards to media coverage.

The actual voting rigging that Trump has talked about is all bullshit. It doesn’t exist. The sum total of all in person voter fraud over the last 15 years would be insufficient to sway a single state election.

[Anonymous]

[quote=SK in CV]I agree with most everything you said until the end. What evidence is there that anything leaked out? [/quote]

My understanding is that there are specific networks and computers that are allowed to have classified information. Somehow, some number of classified emails got off these networks an onto a personal system that was connected to the public internet. That’s what I mean by “leaked” – leaked from a secure system to an insecure one.

I don’t believe any of the information ultimately made it into the hands of our adversaries, although once it was on an insecure system it’s hard to know where it went. But as best I know there is no evidence that national security was impacted by any of it.

My whole take on the “email scandal” is that there were some less-than-ideal IT security practices in the State Department, but that such practices are probably more common throughout the federal government than many people would like to acknowledge. I believe Hillary knew about these issues but choose not to address them due to other priorities. I understand that “other people do it too” is ultimately not a valid justification, but I’m not feeling any outrage about the email issues because I don’t see any evidence of specific intent to leak the information.

It was incompetence, not malice – and minor incompetence relative to the scope of all of the Secretary of State’s responsibilities.

[SK in CV]

[quote=harvey][quote=SK in CV]I agree with most everything you said until the end. What evidence is there that anything leaked out? [/quote]

My understanding is that there are specific networks and computers that are allowed to have classified information. Somehow, some number of classified emails got off these networks an onto a personal system that was connected to the public internet. That’s what I mean by “leaked” – leaked from a secure system to an insecure one.

I don’t believe any of the information ultimately made it into the hands of our adversaries, although once it was on an insecure system it’s hard to know where it went. But as best I know there is no evidence that national security was impacted by any of it.

My whole take on the “email scandal” is that there were some less-than-ideal IT security practices in the State Department, but that such practices are probably more common throughout the federal government than many people would like to acknowledge. I believe Hillary knew about these issues but choose not to address them due to other priorities. I understand that “other people do it too” is ultimately not a valid justification, but I’m not feeling any outrage about the email issues because I don’t see any evidence of specific intent to leak the information.

It was incompetence, not malice – and minor incompetence relative to the scope of all of the Secretary of State’s responsibilities.[/quote]

I’d go along with most of that. The classified info that ended up on the Clinton server was almost all classified after the fact, which is pretty common in government work. It was not classified when it was produced (by the state department), but subsequently upclassified by the state department (sometimes as a result of FOIA request), the FBI or DNI. According to Comey’s testimony to Congress, there were only 3 items that were marked classified, and all 3 of them were improperly marked, meaning someone who knew the rules of classification inside and out, would not consider them classified. That is close to a direct quote from Comey in his testimony. An expert would not have considered them classified.

Her predecessors handled their emails substantially less carefully, including classified email, (as described by Secretary Powell in his email to Secretary Clinton) using public email accounts, and providing not a single one upon their leaving the department.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=harvey]
It was incompetence, not malice – and minor incompetence relative to the scope of all of the Secretary of State’s responsibilities.[/quote]

Yes, because, you know, Arab Spring failing, Benghazi and the death of world respected Ambassador, Syria insurrection, civil war, chemical attacks, utter destruction of Aleppo, Syria refugee crises continued ISIS problems.

Five star performance…

Besides it was only barely over 50% of outside people meeting with her that “donated” to the Clinton Foundation.

[Anonymous]

[quote=no_such_reality]Yes, because, you know, Arab Spring failing, Benghazi and the death of world respected Ambassador, Syria insurrection, civil war, chemical attacks, utter destruction of Aleppo, Syria refugee crises continued ISIS problems.

Five star performance…[/quote]

Yes, because, you know, there were never any problems in the Middle East before her tenure, and a US Secretary of State should be able to just fix all that stuff.

Holy shit you displayed some serious ignorance of world history with that one. Didn’t think you were the type to blindly spout Rush Limbaugh logic.

Maybe we should put Condoleezza back and restore world peace.

There went your credibility…

[no_such_reality]

So your ability to defend her accomplishments as Secretary is so bad you need to create, not one, not two but three straw men I neither said nor implied that you could knock down?

LOL back in ignore group. Eventually you’ll figure out that your partisan hacking is what is given Trump so much pull. Hopefully it won’t give him the election. But who knows, you guys have been surprisingly tone deaf on the warts of your candidate.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=no_such_reality]

Yes, because, you know, Arab Spring failing, Benghazi and the death of world respected Ambassador, Syria insurrection, civil war, chemical attacks, utter destruction of Aleppo, Syria refugee crises continued ISIS problems.

Five star performance…

Besides it was only barely over 50% of outside people meeting with her that “donated” to the Clinton Foundation.[/quote]

Foreign policy is complex.

You can intervene to bring peace and humanitarian relief or promote democracy. Or you can intervene to kick ass and punish. Iraq was definitely to kick ass.

The red line in Syria was walked back. Good thing Obama didn’t take us to war. Arent you glad we didn’t elect McCain?

Chris Stevens was a friend of Hillary’s and a peace corps volunteer who believed in direct contract with the locals. He wasn’t “world respected”. Just an excellent career diplomat. Republicans wouldn’t like him. Crocodile tears on the part of the right.

The Clinton Foundation is one of the best charities in the world. Anyone who’s anyone donated to it. Can one donate to the Catholic Church and still have contact with the bishop or the Pope?

[kev374]

[Author]

Posts