Hillary Email issues

[JohnR]

Pretty well run down track of issues.

Pour a large Coffee, put the phone on silent, and give a read.

https://informedvote2016.wordpress.c...ted-full-form/

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Pretty well run down track of issues.

Pour a large Coffee, put the phone on silent, and give a read.

https://informedvote2016.wordpress.c...ted-full-form/

Some surprising information here . Even for those of us that fully expected a cover up .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Don't see anything in here that hasn't been brought up before.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Don't see anything.....


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not surprising information

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

not surprising information

I do find it interesting that John would take the opinion of a 22 year old who honed his skills in high school debate club over real journalists talking to legal experts. Hey, he's a decent writer but please.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I do find it interesting that John would take the opinion of a 22 year old who honed his skills in high school debate club over real journalists talking to legal experts. Hey, he's a decent writer but please.

so you ignored the content and dismissed it because of the age (and probably angle) of the writer...

"real journalists"...that's funny too


too much comedy

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I do find it interesting that John would take the opinion of a 22 year old who honed his skills in high school debate club over real journalists talking to legal experts. Hey, he's a decent writer but please.

He didn't take the opinion he posted the story and it's not a debate it's an FBI investigation
What real journalist are you referring too BTW ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

I do find it interesting that John would take the opinion of a 22 year old who honed his skills in high school debate club over real journalists talking to legal experts. Hey, he's a decent writer but please.

Haha - even a 22 year old (that has had security training) is able to look up sources.

Bu that is OK, almost 150 FBI agents have been working this case at times, surely there is nothing to see
/sarc

Originally Posted by spence

Don't see anything in here that hasn't been brought up before.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnR

But that is OK, almost 150 FBI Secret agents have been working this case at times, surely there is nothing to see

fixed it

it is government...maybe only 1 or 2 are actually working the case and the rest are standing around in bright yellow pinnies sipping coffee ??

seems to me if ANYONE at the FBI is looking into you or your activities, particularly if you are running around telling everyone you want to be President...there's probably something to see

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Haha - even a 22 year old (that has had security training) is able to look up sources.

Bu that is OK, almost 150 FBI agents have been working this case at times, surely there is nothing to see

"Sources" are people with inside knowledge, not blogs.

Your 147 number just blew up by the way, WashPost retracted that reporting...

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by spence

I do find it interesting that John would take the opinion of a 22 year old who honed his skills in high school debate club over real journalists talking to legal experts. Hey, he's a decent writer but please.

"Real journalist"

That's a good one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Look up Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight. Didn't read the study but I know he is well regarded.

I guess one reaction would be to laugh.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Look up Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight. Didn't read the study but I know he is well regarded.

I guess one reaction would be to laugh.

If I had to bet which candidate actual racists support, I'd pick Trump. And if I had to bet which party ISIS hopes wins, it would be the Democrats. So I'm not sure you can use this to make the point you are trying to make.

The media and the Dems have done a wonderful job making the GOP out to be racist. The ironic thing is, it's the Democratic agenda that has been a disaster for blacks (I refer you to any urban area controlled by the Dems for 40 years, and do a before and after comparison). If I was a racist, I would absolutely vote for Dems, whose agenda is to treat blacks like pets, pat them on the head and say "there, there", give them just enough to avoid death, but not nearly enough to climb out of poverty.

Republicans want all blacks to succeed. Democrats want blacks to "behave", meaning, to vote for Democrats and to not move into wealthy, liberal, white neighborhoods. Because if blacks escaped poverty in huge numbers, they'd have no need to keep voting for Dems.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And if I had to bet which party ISIS hopes wins, it would be the Democrats.

This makes no sense.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

This makes no sense.

To you, I'm sure it doesn't make sense. In all seriousness, when was the last time you were able to process something that made Democrats look like they were on the wrong side of an issue? I mean that, when was the last time? You won't admit that Hilary lies. So it's no surprise that this makes no sense.

To ISIS, the dems are seen as softer on terror and crime. Maybe you followed the issue of waterboarding, and what the 2 parties had to say on the subject. Eric Holder put forth the idea that terrorists captured on the battlefield should be mirandized (and after everyone in Congress got done laughing at that, they told him to run along and go play on the swings). Obama pulled us out of Iraq, which allowed ISIS to step up.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

To you, I'm sure it doesn't make sense. In all seriousness, when was the last time you were able to process something that made Democrats look like they were on the wrong side of an issue? I mean that, when was the last time? You won't admit that Hilary lies. So it's no surprise that this makes no sense.

To ISIS, the dems are seen as softer on terror and crime. Maybe you followed the issue of waterboarding, and what the 2 parties had to say on the subject. Eric Holder put forth the idea that terrorists captured on the battlefield should be mirandized (and after everyone in Congress got done laughing at that, they told him to run along and go play on the swings). Obama pulled us out of Iraq, which allowed ISIS to step up.

Was does ISIS want?

A) Muslims to feel disenfranchised in their home countries so they leave and come to fight for ISIS

B) Foreign boots on the ground and collateral damage to claim Western imperialism and disregard for Muslims in Syria and Iraq to get money from sympathetic Arabs

What does Trump want?

A) Surveillance of Muslims in America and to restrict free movement based on religion

B) US boots on the ground, torture of Muslims and burn the place down War footing

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Look up Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight. Didn't read the study but I know he is well regarded.

I guess one reaction would be to laugh.

Couldn't find the study but I found a lot about how Nate totally miised on his predictions about Trump so far . I also couldn't find positive article about Trump written by Nate but I found a lot of negative ones .
He's obviously biased and to be honest not that funny 😁
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raven]

an indictment shall follow

[spence]

John, Really????????????????????

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...nquiry-n548026

[JohnR]

It is more than 12, there may also be an investigation with the Clinton Global Initiative. And the NSA is pi$$ed.

Time will tell - looks like she has a date with Director Comey real soon.

[JohnR]

State Dept. inspector general report sharply criticizes Clinton’s email practices

The State Department’s independent watchdog has issued a highly critical analysis of Hillary Clinton’s email practices while running the department, concluding that she failed to seek legal approval for her use of a private email server and that department staff would not have given its blessing because of the “security risks in doing so.”

Linky

[Nebe]

Can she go to jail now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Can she go to jail now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's not likely.

There's not a lot of new information here. The biggest gripe is that she didn't turn over all state records when she left office (assuming copying gov servers was good enough) but they also found Colin Powell still has yet to produce any emails.

There was some discussion on low level concern over her server, but they also confirmed it wasn't prohibited.

Generally speaking the report found the State Department has had lax rules for quite some time, but most of the big issues were fixed after Clinton left office.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

That's not likely.

There's not a lot of new information here. The biggest gripe is that she didn't turn over all state records when she left office (assuming copying gov servers was good enough) but they also found Colin Powell still has yet to produce any emails.

There was some discussion on low level concern over her server, but they also confirmed it wasn't prohibited.

Generally speaking the report found the State Department has had lax rules for quite some time, but most of the big issues were fixed after Clinton left office.

The report prepared by the Obama administration, proves you're a liar Spence
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

The report prepared by the Obama administration, proves you're a liar Spence
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No it doesn't. It doesn't really conflict any of Clinton's statements on the matter either. The report really shows the State department had standards that we're keeping pace for decades.

The review encompassed the email and information practices of the past five secretaries of state, finding them “slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications, particularly as those risks pertain to its most senior leadership.”

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

That's not likely.

There's not a lot of new information here. The biggest gripe is that she didn't turn over all state records when she left office (assuming copying gov servers was good enough) but they also found Colin Powell still has yet to produce any emails.

“By Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the department’s guidance was considerably more detailed and more sophisticated,” the report concluded. “Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives.”

http://www.boston.com/culture/politi...clinton-emails

[JohnR]

I'll highlight it again in case it was missed or glossed over:

The State Department’s independent watchdog has issued a highly critical analysis of Hillary Clinton’s email practices while running the department, concluding that she failed to seek legal approval for her use of a private email server and that department staff would not have given its blessing because of the “security risks in doing so.”

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

“By Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the department’s guidance was considerably more detailed and more sophisticated,” the report concluded. “Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives.”

http://www.boston.com/culture/politi...clinton-emails

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding.

[Rockport24]

Unless you can go to jail for not following "policies," I would say there is no jail in her future.

The issue is they have yet to unequivocally prove that she illegally shared classified info (in the way that Snowden did, for example).

[Nebe]

I know. I was just kidding.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Clinton and her team ignored clear guidance from the State Department that her email setup broke federal standards and could leave sensitive material vulnerable to hackers, an independent audit has found. Her aides twice brushed aside concerns, in one case telling technical staff “the matter was not to be discussed further.”

"The inspector general’s review also revealed that hacking attempts forced then-Secretary of State Clinton off email at one point in 2011, though she insists the personal server she used was never breached. Clinton and several of her senior staff declined to be interviewed for the State Department investigation."

http://www.boston.com/culture/politi...clinton-emails