Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#226

Post by p0rtia » Tue Nov 01, 2016 8:47 am

Listened to five inexecreble minutes of Morning Jo, which included several fairly sane judgements of Comey's missive (including a very good point about how Comey should have inserted an "in no way should this be construed to mean" sentence) and Mika sniveling about how of course the FBI agents peeked and know there is damaging material on asshat's computer, therefore Comey had to write the letter because what they all be saying if this damaging material were leaked a week after the election?

So let me get this straight: Isn't anyone who justifies Comey's letter in this way (and Mika is not the only one, just the most annoying) saying by definition that Comey's purpose was in fact to influence the election? Because waiting till after would somehow be wrong, because too late. Ergo the "right" thing to do was to make it known now so that the info could be taken into consideration by the electorate?

Which is not to say that Comey's purpose was to influence the election*, but rather to show that this point of view does not hold up to the modicum of scrutiny even those such as I can produce.

*Count me as someone who thinks Comey convinced himself that he was being hyper conscientious to cover the reality that he was pandering to the Republican Congress.
No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15765
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#227

Post by Reality Check » Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:13 am

Could someone please enlighten me? Were any nuclear launch codes or names of CIA undercover operatives leaked to anyone? Were any emails appropriately marked with the Sate Department classified header leaked or even forwarded to the Clinton domain? Was the safety of the country in any way compromised by anything that happened?

So all the Monday morning quarterbacks please continue with your finger wagging but could someone take a minute to answer my questions?

The Clintons had been the object of vicious and constant attacks for 20 years in 2008. Pardon me if it doesn't bother me one bit that Hillary wanted to continue using a private email server that was more secure than the average government server to conduct non-classified communications. Hillary Clinton could have retired to private life in 2008 after a gut wrenching defeat to Barack Obama. She primarily lost the nomination because unlike Senator Obama she had to vote up or done on going to war in Iraq while she was in the Senate. She made that vote based on faked intelligence.

Instead Clinton chose to serve her country as Secretary of State and by all accounts by a bipartisan majority did an so with dignity and admirably.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6645
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#228

Post by Slim Cognito » Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:15 am

Gnarly Goat wrote:....
IMO this entire affair has been a series of unforced errors which has unfortunately played on existing narratives and opinions about HRC and how she operates which has blown this to epic proportions.

To be perfectly clear, I voted for HRC a couple of weeks ago and last Friday's revelations wouldn't have changed by my vote. However, I happen to believe that leaders must be held to a higher standard and be accountable for their actions. I can't excuse this away.
I can respect that. I have a brother who is retired from a sensitive gov. position and I know he was livid when the server thing came out. Didn't stop him from voting for Hillary either. But, whereas I looked at it as a lapse of judgement and never wavered in my support of her, he might have, had the GOP nominated someone sane (like THAT was gonna happen).
Goldie reports the party a success and all zombies inebriated eliminated.
ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
listeme
Posts: 5407
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:09 am

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#229

Post by listeme » Tue Nov 01, 2016 10:08 am

I honest to pete don't understand why people are citing their security clearance creds in making their arguments about the private server. It tells me that there is more conflation than I feared or that I don't understand something key.
We're used to being told it's our fault that men don't listen to us.

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6645
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#230

Post by Slim Cognito » Tue Nov 01, 2016 10:32 am

listeme wrote:I honest to pete don't understand why people are citing their security clearance creds in making their arguments about the private server. It tells me that there is more conflation than I feared or that I don't understand something key.
I can only tell you what my brother told me and that was he would have lost his job, or worse, if he'd used something other than his gov-issued communication platform for work. In his case, it's a "minions take the fall/the powerful don't" resentment thing.

In an interesting twist, however, the government was hacked a while back and his personal info was compromised. Now he has to watch out for identity theft for the rest of his life. So, there's that.
Goldie reports the party a success and all zombies inebriated eliminated.
ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28742
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#231

Post by Foggy » Tue Nov 01, 2016 10:38 am

listeme wrote:I honest to pete don't understand why people are citing their security clearance creds in making their arguments about the private server. It tells me that there is more conflation than I feared or that I don't understand something key.
Hell, I don't understand why we're discussing whether what she did in having a private server was "OK" or not.

It was a mistake, she admitted it, she apologized for it, time to move on.

It was not a crime, as confirmed by many experts and the FBI. No amount of describing what she did in unpleasant terms is going to turn what she did into a crime, time to move on.

There is no evidence at all that she was hacked or that any classified information was disclosed. No amount of saying what she did was risky is going to mean that classified information was disclosed, time to move on.

Since the only NEW information came out on Friday, about 80% of the discussion here has been about only the OLD information.

That's why it's hard for me to follow along with recent developments. I have no interest whatever in rehashing the OLD information a thousand more times for the next four or eight years. I try to just skip over that stuff.
They say that on his deathbed, Voltaire, asked to renounce the devil, said, "This is no time to be making new enemies."

User avatar
listeme
Posts: 5407
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:09 am

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#232

Post by listeme » Tue Nov 01, 2016 10:44 am

Slim Cognito wrote:
listeme wrote:I honest to pete don't understand why people are citing their security clearance creds in making their arguments about the private server. It tells me that there is more conflation than I feared or that I don't understand something key.
I can only tell you what my brother told me and that was he would have lost his job, or worse, if he'd used something other than his gov-issued communication platform for work. In his case, it's a "minions take the fall/the powerful don't" resentment thing.

In an interesting twist, however, the government was hacked a while back and his personal info was compromised. Now he has to watch out for identity theft for the rest of his life. So, there's that.
Okay, so let's start with 2009. At that point, according to the CNN timeline: "Government employees are allowed to use private emails for government work. However, this practice is strongly discouraged. If using a private email, "the agency must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.""

Allowed, but discouraged.

Does a peon lose his job for using private email in that scenario?

More importantly, WTF does it have to do with security clearance?

2013, same timeline: National Archives and Records Administration clarifies that personal email can only be used in "emergency situations" and that emails from personal accounts should be captured and managed in accordance with agency record-keeping practices.

Again, same two questions.

2014: President Barack Obama signs an update to the Federal Records Act that clarified how private emails are allowed to be used. According to the National Archives and Records Administration, this update prohibits "the use of private email accounts by government officials unless they copy or forward any such emails into their government account within 20 days."

What does this have to do with security clearance?

(Nothing.)

(P.S. If it did, would FRA think it was a good idea for the private email accounts to FORWARD those emails?)
We're used to being told it's our fault that men don't listen to us.

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 15695
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#233

Post by kate520 » Tue Nov 01, 2016 10:46 am

I generally don't hold leaders to the same standards as minions, do you? I mean, seriously, the pressures of world negotiations are not something even a Congressman would have clear knowledge of. Since when do people who have no skin in the game get to set the rules?

I'm not dissing your bro, slim, just sayin'.
DEFEND DEMOCRACY

User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#234

Post by p0rtia » Tue Nov 01, 2016 10:59 am

The one thing that undermines everything HRC says or does: Lack of contextualization.

:brickwallsmall: :brickwallsmall: :brickwallsmall:
No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Epectitus
Posts: 3669
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#235

Post by Epectitus » Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:11 am

Notorial Dissent wrote:Epectitus, of the twenty-five one hundredths of one percent of the total emails recovered, that were CLASSIFIED, I wonder how many of them actually were of any actual import or significance? Since anything can be classified, and often is, saying they are classified is relatively meaningless.
We hopelessly over-classify, specifically for the purpose of being extra careful. There is no small amount of common knowledge that, when handled by government agencies, is considered classified. That said:


Of the 110 classified emails, the majority (66) were classified at the lowest level of "confidential." It is a certainty that none of those carried classified attachments of any sort* or forwarded excerpts from classified documents, but instead consisted of conversations that covered subject matter considered sensitive. For example, we have it from reliable sources that several discussed our overseas drone program; the single worst kept military secret of the last two administrations. I cannot begin to imagine the number of "casual" conversations I had with others over the course of my nuke experience that would have been considered classified. And email is conversational.

Only 8 were at the highest level of "top secret" and all were from the emails voluntarily submitted, none from those recovered by the FBI.

* Remember, the only classifiation markers in the entire bunch were the three emails carrying embedded "(c)" markers in internal paragraphs. This is direct evidence that NONE of the emails had classified documents attached, as those would have been formally marked and great hay would have been made of them.
"Hell, I would wear a dress and ruby red slippers all year if we can prove this" - Mike Zullo

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#236

Post by esseff44 » Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:26 am

I take your point Gnarly Goat but I must ask about how the materials your were talking about were marked. Did they have the necessary classification markings on them or not. Were any of them forwarded newspaper articles about matters that were already reported to the public. What about the level of consequentiality? I have yet to hear one word about the upclassified messages containing information of any material consequence. I think it would have been at the top of the findings if any of them would have resulted in a major breach of security? From everything I have read, there is no indication that classified information that was properly classified and marked as such was mishandled. .If someone has seen something different, please point it out.

And those (C) markings don't count since they should have been removed and mistakenly had not been even though they did not have the footers and headers that would have made them significant. Without the classification headers and footers, they had no such significance.

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6645
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#237

Post by Slim Cognito » Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:52 am

kate520 wrote:I generally don't hold leaders to the same standards as minions, do you? I mean, seriously, the pressures of world negotiations are not something even a Congressman would have clear knowledge of. Since when do people who have no skin in the game get to set the rules?

I'm not dissing your bro, slim, just sayin'.
I think my point has been missed. It's a resentment thing. You can argue whether it's justified, but you can't deny people feel it. Remember the veteran who questioned Clinton at the CiC forum? He clearly felt that she got away with something he'd be imprisoned for. Now I'm not saying he's right, but you're not going to sway him by telling him he's being ridiculous.
Goldie reports the party a success and all zombies inebriated eliminated.
ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
DejaMoo
Posts: 4994
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:19 pm
Occupation: Agent of ZOG

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#238

Post by DejaMoo » Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:13 pm

Because Hillary's last name is 'Clinton', she is in a damned if she does/damned if she doesn't situation with regards to her emails. The reality is, government IT operations are not perfectly secure and breaches have occurred. If she had used the gov't system and it was breached, she would've been held personally accountable. The Republicans would've used it as attack fodder against her personally and also against the government, arguing that it was another example of gov't ineptitude where the private sector does it better.

So she, like your typical upper management person, (especially older upper management persons), took counsel and decided it was safer to have her own personal system set up. I don't know by what process she came to that conclusion, but it's a safe bet that she relied upon the advice of one or more IT people, and didn't really understand what they were telling her. I'd hope she'd have asked for third-party advice as well, but that's not typical of upper management decision making.

Stupid decision, yes. But in reality, she would've lost either way. The supreme irony to me is that the Republican party, champions of outsourcing and privatization of gov't services, are in this instance attacking their chief political opponent for doing exactly that. If this had been a Republican politician, that's the very argument they'd have used in his or her defense.

What makes this supreme irony even more ironic is that a growing number of sectors within the federal government have been privatizing their email networks by signing contracts with Google. Years ago, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, NASA, the Army, and the State Department have moved at least some of their email services to Google. State and local governments across the country have followed suit, along with many private companies, corporations, and public/private educational institutions and school districts. There is a common underlying reason for this: passing the buck on IT security. By making it a third party's responsibility, they can deny accountability for the inevitable security breach(es).

Too, also, the argument that emails had to be forwarded to a private account in order to be printed off at home is both bullshit and an admission of ineptitude. If you can't get an email to print correctly, you first consult with your IT people. If you just don't want to do that, or if they are so inept they cannot remedy the problem, you either take image captures of the emails and print them, or you copy the emails to a word processing program's document and hit print. There is always a workaround, and claiming that you had to send emails to in order to print them at home is just stupidly ridic.

But again - after years of working with upper management who don't get anything IT related at all, I can believe they could be that stupid. Thing is, they should've said: This is not acceptable. Fix it. If not Clinton personally, then her assistants.

And back again: your IT security is only as good as your IT people, and when you don't understand what they're doing for you, you have no idea what they might also be doing to/with you. Management's lack of understanding of IT security makes them easy victims of inept, idiotic, or corrupt IT staff. I could share some stories...
I've heard this bull before.

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 10430
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#239

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:19 pm

DejaMoo wrote:Because Hillary's last name is 'Clinton', she is in a damned if she does/damned if she doesn't situation with regards to her emails. The reality is, government IT operations are not perfectly secure and breaches have occurred. If she had used the gov't system and it was breached, she would've been held personally accountable. The Republicans would've used it as attack fodder against her personally and also against the government, arguing that it was another example of gov't ineptitude where the private sector does it better.

So she, like your typical upper management person, (especially older upper management persons), took counsel and decided it was safer to have her own personal system set up. I don't know by what process she came to that conclusion, but it's a safe bet that she relied upon the advice of one or more IT people, and didn't really understand what they were telling her. I'd hope she'd have asked for third-party advice as well, but that's not typical of upper management decision making.

Stupid decision, yes. But in reality, she would've lost either way. The supreme irony to me is that the Republican party, champions of outsourcing and privatization of gov't services, are in this instance attacking their chief political opponent for doing exactly that. If this had been a Republican politician, that's the very argument they'd have used in his or her defense.

What makes this supreme irony even more ironic is that a growing number of sectors within the federal government have been privatizing their email networks by signing contracts with Google. Years ago, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, NASA, the Army, and the State Department have moved at least some of their email services to Google. State and local governments across the country have followed suit, along with many private companies, corporations, and public/private educational institutions and school districts. There is a common underlying reason for this: passing the buck on IT security. By making it a third party's responsibility, they can deny accountability for the inevitable security breach(es).

Too, also, the argument that emails had to be forwarded to a private account in order to be printed off at home is both bullshit and an admission of ineptitude. If you can't get an email to print correctly, you first consult with your IT people. If you just don't want to do that, or if they are so inept they cannot remedy the problem, you either take image captures of the emails and print them, or you copy the emails to a word processing program's document and hit print. There is always a workaround, and claiming that you had to send emails to in order to print them at home is just stupidly ridic.

But again - after years of working with upper management who don't get anything IT related at all, I can believe they could be that stupid. Thing is, they should've said: This is not acceptable. Fix it. If not Clinton personally, then her assistants.

And back again: your IT security is only as good as your IT people, and when you don't understand what they're doing for you, you have no idea what they might also be doing to/with you. Management's lack of understanding of IT security makes them easy victims of inept, idiotic, or corrupt IT staff. I could share some stories...
Again, everything I have read says it was an issue with the email communicating with the printer. No amount of copying and pasting or screenshotting or word documents will fix that. And my computer professional husband is not inept, but the problem with his lap top and my printer remains.

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11952
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#240

Post by Plutodog » Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:45 pm

Sugar Magnolia wrote:
Plutodog wrote:I just don't buy the idea that all these emails needed to be passed to outside government computers for printing out. The SOS had the power and the budget to get them all printed on gov't printers, delivered to her anywhere on earth. It was a dumb unforced error.
My understanding is that it wasn't a problem with the actual printers, but rather a problem with the email network communicating with the printers. We have one printer here at the house that will only print from my husband's laptop about 50% of the time. No rhyme or reason why or when it will print, but when it doesn't, we have to turn the printer off and back on, and then it may print 5 copies. If the .gov email system was as horsey as reports indicate, I can easily understand trying to bypass the entire system for the sake of convenience.
Same difference to me. We're talking SecState, fourth in line of succession to POTUS. Issues are eminently fixable when the SecState or her staff raise a little bitty stink.
The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

User avatar
DejaMoo
Posts: 4994
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:19 pm
Occupation: Agent of ZOG

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#241

Post by DejaMoo » Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:04 pm

Sugar Magnolia wrote: Again, everything I have read says it was an issue with the email communicating with the printer. No amount of copying and pasting or screenshotting or word documents will fix that. And my computer professional husband is not inept, but the problem with his lap top and my printer remains.
I don't know what exactly is going on in your case, Sugar, so your husband is certainly the pro to trust on your issue.

But it's generally a safe bet to say that if one has been unable to print a file that is not an email, but a document or image file that just so happens to contain the content of an email, whatever the problem is, it can't be the email application. That's why this workaround is nearly always successful when it is an email problem - by making a different type of file to send to the printer, the email app is no longer involved in the printing process.

In general, printers seem to be the most problematical part of computer networks for end users. Age and brand of the printers can be factors, too, which has definitely influenced my choice of brand/type of printers.
I've heard this bull before.

User avatar
Fortinbras
Posts: 2925
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#242

Post by Fortinbras » Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:48 pm

I am now inclined to blame the emails on Weiner's computer entirely on Weiner, whom I suspect may have surreptitiously copied his wife's email files - not just the State Dept messages but just about everything blindly - in anticipation of a possible divorce (in the expectation that he or somebody working for him would wade through all her emails and find something to use against her).

In any case, Abedin's explanation that she was copying HRC's emails in order to print them, an explanation she gave the FBI six months ago, indicates that nothing new will be in this latest batch.

What we do seem to have is a situation where Republicans are exploiting the public's ignorance of a variety of important details, including but not limited to:
1. The drawbacks of using the official State Dept servers, including its drawbacks years ago when HRC was the Secretary,
2. The ephemeral and (Really) unimportant nature of most emails marked Confidential,
3. The relative safety and security of HRC's personal email server,
4. That standard procedure of the State Dept and many other govt agencies is deliberate erasure of files - or even destruction of harddrives - every month or two or whenever leaving govt service.

User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 8645
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a joint project of the U.S. and Canada
Contact:

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#243

Post by Kriselda Gray » Tue Nov 01, 2016 5:49 pm

I just need to read everything before responding...
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush

SCMP = SovCits/Militias/Patriots.

Thor promised to slay the Ice Giants
God promised to quell all evil
-----
I'm not seeing any Ice Giants...

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28742
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#244

Post by Foggy » Tue Nov 01, 2016 6:13 pm

I fergets where I saw the headline, browsing around today somewhere, that Huma Abedin didn't know her emails were on Weiner's computer.

Which, whoa if true. :shock: That's a BAD HUSBAND who stole his wife's emails.
They say that on his deathbed, Voltaire, asked to renounce the devil, said, "This is no time to be making new enemies."

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 8107
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#245

Post by RoadScholar » Tue Nov 01, 2016 6:29 pm

Foggy wrote:I fergets where I saw the headline, browsing around today somewhere, that Huma Abedin didn't know her emails were on Weiner's computer.

Which, whoa if true. :shock: That's a BAD HUSBAND who stole his wife's emails.
Makes sense. The guilty are the suspicious.
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

Mr. Gneiss
Posts: 1805
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:37 am

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#246

Post by Mr. Gneiss » Tue Nov 01, 2016 6:35 pm

Foggy wrote:I fergets where I saw the headline, browsing around today somewhere, that Huma Abedin didn't know her emails were on Weiner's computer.

Which, whoa if true. :shock: That's a BAD HUSBAND who stole his wife's emails.
Ahem....http://thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 00#p837389 :-D

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28742
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#247

Post by Foggy » Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:14 pm

Mr. Gneiss wrote:
Foggy wrote:I fergets where I saw the headline, browsing around today somewhere, that Huma Abedin didn't know her emails were on Weiner's computer.

Which, whoa if true. :shock: That's a BAD HUSBAND who stole his wife's emails.
Ahem....http://thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 00#p837389 :-D
:oops: :bag:

Oops. :blackeye:
They say that on his deathbed, Voltaire, asked to renounce the devil, said, "This is no time to be making new enemies."

Hercule Parrot
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 3:58 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#248

Post by Hercule Parrot » Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:52 pm

esseff44 wrote:I take your point Gnarly Goat but I must ask about how the materials your were talking about were marked. Did they have the necessary classification markings on them or not. Were any of them forwarded newspaper articles about matters that were already reported to the public. What about the level of consequentiality? I have yet to hear one word about the upclassified messages containing information of any material consequence. I think it would have been at the top of the findings if any of them would have resulted in a major breach of security? From everything I have read, there is no indication that classified information that was properly classified and marked as such was mishandled. .If someone has seen something different, please point it out.
I think the formal security classification is a red herring. The daily email chatter of the US Secretary of State with her closest advisers, with her overseas diplomatic staff and with POTUS himself would be of immense intelligence value to any opposed (or allied) nation. Even with the nuclear codes carefully excluded, a skilled analyst could sift so much from that. The mood and tone, what's really bothering the administration, are those threats of sanctions a bluff, will they support this or that country in a border dispute, which ambassadors have influence and which don't, etc.

Hercule Parrot
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 3:58 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#249

Post by Hercule Parrot » Tue Nov 01, 2016 8:18 pm

Mr. Gneiss wrote:Here's my wild arsed guess, Karen. Huma's soon to be ex somehow was aware of her Yahoo email account and password. If Yahoo is like Gmail (which I use), you can download all of your emails to a "new" device. Perhaps, Mr. Weiner accessed her account and downloaded all of her emails onto his laptop...

Until I see proof otherwise, I'll take Ms. Abedin at her word. It wouldn't surprise me if Mr. Weiner stole his wife's emails in an attempt to know what she is "up to" as the divorce proceedings continue.
I agree. But to store them, as rumoured, in a folder called Life Insurance doesn't quite fit with Jealous Husband. My own WAG is that he knew he was facing a new round of sexual misconduct investigations, and he knew that the Democrats were near to finally casting him into the wilderness. I think he figured that it might be useful to have some leverage. Somewhere in those thousands of emails there would be embarrassing material, and if the Democratic leadership knew he had a copy then maybe they would think twice about hanging him out to dry.

What he failed to appreciate is that copies of HRC's email server are so widely available that his possession of yet another copy wouldn't make much difference. USBIS* estimates that 9.6% of all disk capacity in the Western hemisphere is now occupied by copies of the Clinton email archive, and Kapersky have proposed categorising it as a malware infection. If this trend continues, it even seems possible that the State Department might get a copy eventually.

(*US Bureau of Imaginary Statistics - 2016)

User avatar
listeme
Posts: 5407
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:09 am

Re: Hillary Clinton's e-mail /Debunking the lies

#250

Post by listeme » Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:46 pm

Hercule Parrot wrote:
esseff44 wrote:I take your point Gnarly Goat but I must ask about how the materials your were talking about were marked. Did they have the necessary classification markings on them or not. Were any of them forwarded newspaper articles about matters that were already reported to the public. What about the level of consequentiality? I have yet to hear one word about the upclassified messages containing information of any material consequence. I think it would have been at the top of the findings if any of them would have resulted in a major breach of security? From everything I have read, there is no indication that classified information that was properly classified and marked as such was mishandled. .If someone has seen something different, please point it out.
I think the formal security classification is a red herring. The daily email chatter of the US Secretary of State with her closest advisers, with her overseas diplomatic staff and with POTUS himself would be of immense intelligence value to any opposed (or allied) nation. Even with the nuclear codes carefully excluded, a skilled analyst could sift so much from that. The mood and tone, what's really bothering the administration, are those threats of sanctions a bluff, will they support this or that country in a border dispute, which ambassadors have influence and which don't, etc.
Uh. No. You're talking about galoshes at a bake sale.
We're used to being told it's our fault that men don't listen to us.

Post Reply

Return to “Presidential Election”