|
|
Hillary and the email (Page 8)
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status:
Offline
|
|
Have we discussed that colin powell and condoleeza rice also had private email servers? If true, why were they not dragged through the courts as well?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Do you guys think this is an isolated incident, or the tip of the iceberg?
We are treating this as an isolated incident and expending all our effort into seeing Hillary Clinton being punished without seemingly even asking whether this is the tip of the iceberg.
*this* is what I was trying to say before about distractions, although I admit that the word "distractions" was a distraction.
Have we discussed that colin powell and condoleeza rice also had private email servers? If true, why were they not dragged through the courts as well?
Or maybe another question is "how big is the iceberg"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by andi*pandi
Have we discussed that colin powell and condoleeza rice also had private email servers? If true, why were they not dragged through the courts as well?
To my knowledge, neither of them had their own private server.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
As far as dragging the past administration through the courts, not to do so was Obama's call, no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
To my knowledge, neither of them had their own private server.
Colin Powell also used a private email account for official matters.
Originally Posted by politico.com
The Times story also mentioned that Powell “used personal email to communicate with American officials and ambassadors and foreign leaders.”
The statement continues: “He did not take any hard copies of emails with him when he left office and has no record of the emails. They were all unclassified and mostly of a housekeeping nature. He came into office encouraging the use of emails as a way of getting the staff to embrace the new 21st information world.”
And their staffers also received classified material on personal email accounts. According to
Originally Posted by cnn.com
In all the cases, however -- as well as Clinton's -- the information was not marked "classified" at the time the emails were sent, according to State Department investigators.
I think what you can say in Powell's and Rice's favor, though, is that back then email was new and now we understand better what you need to do to secure email communication. To me Clinton's decision to manage her own account was to continue what she has done in the past, and what her predecessors have done as well.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
I agree, I'm just saying that whatever happens with Hillary, what is stopping other politicians from using technology in dangerous ways out of personal convenience or just human error?
The solution is, for example, forcing all email to be PGP encrypted, injecting an asset that calls home to identify when it is being read on a non-registered network, etc.
Instead, we are just focusing on slapping her on the wrist. Slap away, it doesn't really make us any safer next time around.
Do politicians want to stop themselves from using technology in dangerous ways? I'm not seeing it.
PGP actually enables citizens to use technology in dangerous ways, so they're pretty against that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
Using a private email account is not the same as running your own server with its own domain. Did Rice or Powell have their own email domain: @rice.com or @powell.com with a server in the basement of your house, let alone in the bathroom of some mom and pop outfit?
|
45/47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
BTW, there still is the pay for play donations to the Clinton Foundation.
|
45/47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
Do politicians want to stop themselves from using technology in dangerous ways? I'm not seeing it.
PGP actually enables citizens to use technology in dangerous ways, so they're pretty against that.
Shouldn't this be the discussion we are having then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chongo
BTW, there still is the pay for play donations to the Clinton Foundation.
What is your goal with this parade of posts of yours?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chongo
Using a private email account is not the same as running your own server with its own domain. Did Rice or Powell have their own email domain: @rice.com or @powell.com with a server in the basement of your house, let alone in the bathroom of some mom and pop outfit?
In the eyes of the law, it's not different: all of them have violated government regulations and exchanged classified information via non-governmental accounts. The whole affair is hyped up beyond belief to vilify Hillary Clinton, and this hype even prevents us from having a serious discussion about these issues and fix them in the future. What baffles me is that there are enough policy positions of hers with which I take issue (e. g. her neo-con leanings), and that fades completely into the background.
Originally Posted by subego
Do politicians want to stop themselves from using technology in dangerous ways? I'm not seeing it.
I don't think most of them are even aware. They're just used to getting things their way and due to their age (Clinton is close to 70) they did not grow up with these technologies as we did.
Originally Posted by subego
PGP actually enables citizens to use technology in dangerous ways, so they're pretty against that.
Now it'd really pay off if all email were cryptographically secure. If there were only a government body pushing for a secure email replacement …
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
In the eyes of the law, it's not different: all of them have violated government regulations and exchanged classified information via non-governmental accounts. The whole affair is hyped up beyond belief to vilify Hillary Clinton, and this hype even prevents us from having a serious discussion about these issues and fix them in the future. What baffles me is that there are enough policy positions of hers with which I take issue (e. g. her neo-con leanings), and that fades completely into the background.
Well said.
I predict the Republicans will continue on this issue, but as people tire of hearing of it they'll also make up some stupid stuff ala Wright, Madrassas, Joe the Plumber, Obama's citizenship, etc. and there will be so much attention around this stupid stuff that serious discussions will be scarce.
Republicans: breath and focus. If you want Trump to win the election, don't obsess over this single issue when there are tons of other things you can balance this with, and please focus on issues with substance. Clinton eating a burrito is really no big deal, honest!
(
Last edited by besson3c; Jul 6, 2016 at 11:21 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by andi*pandi
Have we discussed that colin powell and condoleeza rice also had private email servers? If true, why were they not dragged through the courts as well?
Rice did not and Powell was a different era.
|
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
SWEEEET. Two wrongs do make a right!
Let's see, I have been told on more than one occasion that is "excusing bad behavior by pointing out prior bad behavior"
A pox on both your houses.
|
45/47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm not excusing anyone unless everyone deserves excusing.
My question (as if we don't already know the answer) is why are you making such a huge fuss of Hillary's 50k but you weren't remotely bothered about GW's 5m or Rove's 22m?
|
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Hillary has been one big trainwreck for decades. Hillarys problem is her record of screw-ups due to shitty judgement and having no morals or character going all the way back to Watergate, where she was fired for being unprofessional and untrustworthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
I'm not excusing anyone unless everyone deserves excusing.
My question (as if we don't already know the answer) is why are you making such a huge fuss of Hillary's 50k but you weren't remotely bothered about GW's 5m or Rove's 22m?
It wasn't right then, which makes it even worse now. Hillary didn't learn from those mistakes.
The laws were changed/updated after Rove,correct?
|
45/47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
In the eyes of the law, it's not different: all of them have violated government regulations and exchanged classified information via non-governmental accounts. The whole affair is hyped up beyond belief to vilify Hillary Clinton, and this hype even prevents us from having a serious discussion about these issues and fix them in the future. What baffles me is that there are enough policy positions of hers with which I take issue (e. g. her neo-con leanings), and that fades completely into the background.
They're not even remotely comparable.
They found two classified emails total from Powell, and both were retroactively classified. A sampling of Clinton's emails found 1 in 10 were classified at the time.
Condi didn't use email.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
I'm not excusing anyone unless everyone deserves excusing.
My question (as if we don't already know the answer) is why are you making such a huge fuss of Hillary's 50k but you weren't remotely bothered about GW's 5m or Rove's 22m?
As I said. Pursuing this (or not) was Obama's call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
45/47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status:
Offline
|
|
“did she testify or talk to them under oath?” Comey answered, “No.” But added that “it’s still a crime to lie to us.”
When asked if there was a transcript of the interview, Comey stated that there wasn’t one because the interview wasn’t recorded, but there was an analysis of Clinton’s interview.
Isn't THIS a load of horse shit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
My knee-jerk analysis is there's some brinksmanship going on here. If Comey made this "on the record", Clinton would have clammed-up, and he gets nothing he already doesn't have.
All it would have done is made her look bad (there'd still have been no recommendation to indict), which would prompt accusations Comey is doing a political hit-job.
And those accusations wouldn't necessarily have been wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status:
Offline
|
|
What did Lynch say to Comey?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
My gut tells me she stayed out of it for the most part. Comey doesn't seem like a guy you can push around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
45/47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
How much public money is it ok for these idiots to waste on their witch hunts?
|
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
How much public money is it ok for these idiots to waste on their witch hunts?
I guess it depends on who's witch is being hunted.
|
45/47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
How much public money is it ok for these idiots to waste on their witch hunts?
Why do you care? It's not your money.
|
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
I don't really, but why don't you?
|
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Idiots?? Witch hunt? Sure you're not biased...NOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BadKosh
Idiots?? Witch hunt? Sure you're not biased...NOT!
If 8 or 9 or more unsuccessful investigations into the same person for the same thing doesn't constitute a witch hunt I don't know what does. At what point can Hillary sue this Gowdy bloke for harassment anyway?
|
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status:
Offline
|
|
So you don't have the intellectual skills to notice that these are DIFFERENT INVESTIGATIONS?
She and the Clinton money laundering, perjury, influence peddling, etc.
Why are you so much in the tank for Hillary? It suggests a poor ability to judge others character.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
I don't really, but why don't you?
Because the feds spend more on toilet paper in a given month? If it were $billions$ or even just hundreds of $millions$ you might have a point, but $7M? Nah.
|
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
If 8 or 9 or more unsuccessful investigations into the same person for the same thing doesn't constitute a witch hunt I don't know what does. At what point can Hillary sue this Gowdy bloke for harassment anyway?
As I said earlier, there's a reason why Clinton gets hassled like this and Obama doesn't.
And as I also said earlier, it's not because these same people like Obama.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Because the feds spend more on toilet paper in a given month? If it were $billions$ or even just hundreds of $millions$ you might have a point, but $7M? Nah.
$7m is a lot of money. Think about why you brag about giving $25k cheques away to charity. What a silly argument.
|
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BadKosh
So you don't have the intellectual skills to notice that these are DIFFERENT INVESTIGATIONS?
She and the Clinton money laundering, perjury, influence peddling, etc.
Why are you so much in the tank for Hillary? It suggests a poor ability to judge others character.
I'd back almost anyone over Trump. Not you obviously.
If these investigations were being brought by a police department or single federal agency then heads would have rolled on harassment charges by now.
|
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
As I said earlier, there's a reason why Clinton gets hassled like this and Obama doesn't.
And as I also said earlier, it's not because these same people like Obama.
Because Obama hasn't had 8 years of shit over his birth certificate, nationality, religion, terrorist affiliations, etc, etc. Brain-dead, racist-inspired accusation after accusation. They've started to dry up because he can't run for office again. Thats why Hilary is getting all the attention now, because they are trying to stop her getting elected. Not rocket science.
|
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Straw man from hell, dude.
The FB frigging I just called Hillary "grossly negligent". This is comparable to the accusations of Obama's Muslim Kenyan terrorismness?
Is there any possibility one is genuinely grossly negligent, while the other simply isn't?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
^^^
Just to be accurate....
Comey concluded by basically saying that Clinton's conduct didn't rise to the level of "grossly negligent" — even as it was "extremely careless." And he said not only that he wasn't recommending charges — but that no "reasonable prosecutor" would do so. Comey makes clear this is a no-doubter for him
"Extremely careless,’ and 7 other big quotes from the FBI’s findings on Clinton’s emails | WashingtonPost.com
Director Comey has called Sec. Clinton's actions "extremely careless". But if he thought they were "grossly negligent" he would have had to charge her.
OAW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
My bad... and the correction is appreciated.
I feel my point still stands, however. The FBI isn't looking in to Obama being Muslim, Kenyan, or terrorist, so I think they make very poor comparisons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
But they never bothered to even look at high profile Republicans for the same "extreme carelessness". Its so obviously a ridiculously partisan crusade. Even their own investigators have said as much.
It might have warranted one investigation but its degenerated into an embarrassing farce. Surely if they do get her on the emails they will have to go back and prosecute all those high profile predecessors too. I don't think anyone wants that.
|
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Prosecute her predecessors for what?
Condi didn't use email.
In all Powell's email they found a grand total of two, not sent by him but to him, which may have been classified at the time. Powell says they weren't. Also relevant is a State Department email policy didn't even exist when Powell held the position.
This is opposed to Clinton, who IIUC had over a hundred which were unquestionably classified at the time, and assertions from IT there were problems with her system were greeted with veiled threats.
As for the witch hunt angle, I'm somewhat torn. Were all the Benghazi panels a fishing expedition? Absolutely. Do I approve of fishing expeditions? No. Absolutely not.
That said, I don't think you can simply let someone off the hook because they were caught via fishing expedition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
My ire isn't so much due to the classified information, though being leaky AF isn't exactly good. The bee I have in my bonnet is Clinton's setup pretty damn conveniently allowed her and a team of America's highest paid attorneys to retroactively decide what goes into the State Department archive and claim the rest of it no longer exists.
This is why her owning the server is relevant. The above plan doesn't work if someone else runs the server. Why do you even bother running your own server if not to keep other people's hands off it?
I strive to make arguments which don't ascribe motivations, because they're generally unknowable. In that vein I'll state the following.
If Clinton had the desire to hide an email, her system just happened to be within spitting distance of the platonic ideal.
If this is the state of affairs, am I wrong for desiring to know it rather than be in the dark?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
My ire isn't so much due to the classified information, though being leaky AF isn't exactly good. The bee I have in my bonnet is Clinton's setup pretty damn conveniently allowed her and a team of America's highest paid attorneys to retroactively decide what goes into the State Department archive and claim the rest of it no longer exists.
This is why her owning the server is relevant. The above plan doesn't work if someone else runs the server. Why do you even bother running your own server if not to keep other people's hands off it?
I strive to make arguments which don't ascribe motivations, because they're generally unknowable. In that vein I'll state the following.
If Clinton had the desire to hide an email, her system just happened to be within spitting distance of the platonic ideal.
If this is the state of affairs, am I wrong for desiring to know it rather than be in the dark?
Is this the tip of the iceberg?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
Is this the tip of the iceberg?
If I understand your question properly, what's more important is it shows the type of thing which can be expected going forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
If I understand your question properly, what's more important is it shows the type of thing which can be expected going forward.
With just her, or with any politician with the same power/access?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
With just her, or with any politician with the same power/access?
I think most politicians would play the game... at least the wise ones would. You turn in your homework and then you're free to pursue all the shady shit you want on your own time. If she had done that, there wouldn't have been anything for the fishing expedition to catch. The Republicans pore over the homework, nod, and look even more like buffoons.
Again, I'll try and steer away from motivations. For someone who's had people gunning for her over the course of decades, she engaged in behavior which is remarkably blind to what constitutes shady looking shit.
There are lots of reasons this could be the case, and none of them reflect well on her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|