Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Hillary and the email

Hillary and the email (Page 9)
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2016, 05:43 PM
 
I see your point. You are concerned with her not playing the game well, whereas I'm concerned with reshaping the rules of the game. That is where our gap seems to be.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2016, 05:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
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.
GWB and Rove "lost" 27 million emails between them that ran through GOP servers IIUC. Thats really no different to private servers in practice.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2016, 08:44 PM
 
Losing spam and mishandling top secret documents are two very different things.
"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
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2016, 10:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I see your point. You are concerned with her not playing the game well, whereas I'm concerned with reshaping the rules of the game. That is where our gap seems to be.
My concern is the attitude indicated by someone not feeling they need to play the game. That they are above the rules.

Reshaping the rules is meaningless to those who aren't inclined to follow them in the first place.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2016, 10:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My concern is the attitude indicated by someone not feeling they need to play the game. That they are above the rules.

Reshaping the rules is meaningless to those who aren't inclined to follow them in the first place.

But that's kind of my point, Hillary is far from the only politician that feels like rules don't apply to her. Do we fix that with witch hunts and wrist slaps, or changing the rules so that there are far fewer witches that are allowed to exist in the first place?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2016, 12:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
But that's kind of my point, Hillary is far from the only politician that feels like rules don't apply to her. Do we fix that with witch hunts and wrist slaps, or changing the rules so that there are far fewer witches that are allowed to exist in the first place?
This is a false dichotomy.

Further, the only reason we're discussing changing the rules is because a witch hunt dug up she made the rules her bitch.

This is distinct from feeling like the rules don't apply. Most politicians at least pretend like the rules apply to them to keep up an appearance of propriety. Her lacking that is what disturbs me. It's not like I think paying only lip-service makes everything all hunky-dory, it's how far someone is willing to push things when they still put effort into keeping up appearances, versus someone who's dropped all pretense.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2016, 02:07 AM
 
I don't see it that way.

I think this issue exposed a problem, but this problem is not exclusive to Hillary Clinton at all. And I don't mean that as a means to excuse her.

The problem is much, much, much bigger than her. It essentially boils down to the fact that the pace of technology will always be faster than the pace of policy creation, and as such it is very easy for the government (and business) to put our security and privacy at risk by taking advantage of this lag. Secondly, those with power/money are afforded leeway and the luxury of using this to obfuscate and remove transparency.

You can argue that the proper legal frameworks were in place to prevent her from using private email servers, but I would argue that still doesn't really address these fundamental problems.

Here is a very benign example...

You are supposed to turn your cellphones off on an airplane because cellular signal supposedly disrupts air traffic messaging, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft . Well, what about iMessage and data? The FCC restricts this, but it does not discriminate between cell vs. data, probably because when this law came to be there was just SMS/cellular communication.

Here is a more serious example...

Remember the case of the US government wanting Apple to put in place an encryption backdoor? There was a lot of debate as to what Apple's rights were, and what our rights as citizens are when it comes to encryption and privacy. What if the US government continued to press Apple on this?

As far as the obfuscation and removal of transparency, this ties in to this as well, because it is much easier to do this with weak or half-baked policy lacking teeth.

The solution: we need to figure out what our laws should be surrounding encryption, privacy, security clearance, device access, data storage, private key management, etc. etc. Policy will probably never catch up to the pace of technology, but we need to do what we can.

If you want to examine this even further, why don't we try? Because Congress is completely broken right now. It can't even agree upon simple things like providing health care to 9-11 first responders. Now, I realize that we accomplish things with baby steps, but I would argue that if we just focus on Hillary Clinton, fine, but let's at least acknowledge that this is a baby step, not a complete solution we should be satisfied with as permanent closure to these sorts of issues.
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2016, 09:48 AM
 
Changing rules would only work with those who followed the rules in the first place. Its the same way as trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Only the law abiding citizens follow the ever restrictive laws.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2016, 11:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't see it that way.

I think this issue exposed a problem, but this problem is not exclusive to Hillary Clinton at all. And I don't mean that as a means to excuse her.

The problem is much, much, much bigger than her. It essentially boils down to the fact that the pace of technology will always be faster than the pace of policy creation, and as such it is very easy for the government (and business) to put our security and privacy at risk by taking advantage of this lag. Secondly, those with power/money are afforded leeway and the luxury of using this to obfuscate and remove transparency.

You can argue that the proper legal frameworks were in place to prevent her from using private email servers, but I would argue that still doesn't really address these fundamental problems.

Here is a very benign example...

You are supposed to turn your cellphones off on an airplane because cellular signal supposedly disrupts air traffic messaging, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft . Well, what about iMessage and data? The FCC restricts this, but it does not discriminate between cell vs. data, probably because when this law came to be there was just SMS/cellular communication.

Here is a more serious example...

Remember the case of the US government wanting Apple to put in place an encryption backdoor? There was a lot of debate as to what Apple's rights were, and what our rights as citizens are when it comes to encryption and privacy. What if the US government continued to press Apple on this?

As far as the obfuscation and removal of transparency, this ties in to this as well, because it is much easier to do this with weak or half-baked policy lacking teeth.

The solution: we need to figure out what our laws should be surrounding encryption, privacy, security clearance, device access, data storage, private key management, etc. etc. Policy will probably never catch up to the pace of technology, but we need to do what we can.

If you want to examine this even further, why don't we try? Because Congress is completely broken right now. It can't even agree upon simple things like providing health care to 9-11 first responders. Now, I realize that we accomplish things with baby steps, but I would argue that if we just focus on Hillary Clinton, fine, but let's at least acknowledge that this is a baby step, not a complete solution we should be satisfied with as permanent closure to these sorts of issues.
I'm not doing a good job of explaining what is distinct about Hillary. It's separate from the question of how we promote transparency, and the government-technology lag.

I'm making a point about her personally. This is relevant because we're probably stuck with her as chief executive for four years.

Politics is about appearances. The big buzzword this year is "optics". As a society we have tacitly accepted and now label the fact in the world of politics perception trumps reality.

When a politician stops caring about how bad things look? Be afraid. Be very afraid.

I'll give you an example. Sitting on a hot tarmac so you can ambush the Attorney General in person. Whether this should be legal or not is irrelevant, it's a statement about the person's character (or lack thereof).
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2016, 12:17 PM
 
I got your point, and it is valid. Yes, optics matter very much, I'm just saying that this issue isn't just about Hillary's lack of concern over optics. Do you get my point?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2016, 12:29 PM
 
And to be clear, that statement about his character isn't "I'm above it all". As has been said. This is common character trait in politicians. The statement is "I am invulnerable".
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2016, 12:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I got your point, and it is valid. Yes, optics matter very much, I'm just saying that this issue isn't just about Hillary's lack of concern over optics. Do you get my point?
There's always going to be a wider issue with just about everything.

The only reason I've been avoiding it is because I feel it's being argued that discussion must come at the expense of the discussion wherein we discuss fastening our seatbelts because it's going to be a bumpy four years.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2016, 01:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
GWB and Rove "lost" 27 million emails between them that ran through GOP servers IIUC. Thats really no different to private servers in practice.
If someone wants to bust Karl Rove's balls, I'll hand them a hammer.

As I mentioned before, the choice was Obama's. His choice does not grant his operatives immunity.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2016, 03:14 PM
 
You know it's bad when Susan Sarandon shares a Maureen Dowd NY Times piece that speaks ill of Hillary.
The Clinton Contamination - NYTimes.com
45/47
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2016, 03:28 PM
 
I think Susan is a Bernie faithful.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2016, 03:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think Susan is a Bernie faithful.
To quote the late great Phil Hartman as Ed McMahon "you are correct sir"
45/47
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2016, 08:53 AM
 
"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
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2016, 09:00 AM
 
She still has to endure the Clinton Money Laundering scam, the influence peddling and a few more, including a newly RE-OPENED DoS investigation into her perjury involving the emails. Ryan is cutting Hillarys access to Classified documents and briefings too.
Let her go out and LIE SOME MORE! Shes just digging a bigger hole (which she'll need).
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2016, 10:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
There's always going to be a wider issue with just about everything.

The only reason I've been avoiding it is because I feel it's being argued that discussion must come at the expense of the discussion wherein we discuss fastening our seatbelts because it's going to be a bumpy four years.

I would say that it is going to be a bumpy four years regardless of who is elected because of money/power buying obfuscation and a lack of transparency (AKA the influence of money in our politics), so to me these are the very things we need to be discussing now.

While Bernie Sanders didn't win the nomination, I'd like to think that the bulk of his traction was surrounding this very issue. If not for this issue, I'm not sure he would have gone very far, so it is indeed a meaningful issue in the eyes of the general public as well.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2016, 11:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
She still has to endure the Clinton Money Laundering scam, the influence peddling and a few more, including a newly RE-OPENED DoS investigation into her perjury involving the emails. Ryan is cutting Hillarys access to Classified documents and briefings too.
Let her go out and LIE SOME MORE! Shes just digging a bigger hole (which she'll need).
Washington Free Beacon Super Cut.
45/47
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2016, 11:16 AM
 
Unlike Pinocchio, who NOSE grew longer with each lie, With Hillary, her ankles get fatter.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2016, 01:08 PM
 
That's cankles.
45/47
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2016, 01:43 PM
 
Three 'extremely careless' individuals who faced charges | Washington Examiner

John Deutch, CIA director

John Deutch narrowly avoided submitting to a plea deal related to his mishandling of classified information when then-President Bill Clinton pardoned him in 2001.

Deutch, a former CIA director, stored highly-classified information on his personal computers and faced backlash over a withering inspector general report on the matter, much like Hillary Clinton.

When the Justice Department moved to press charges against Deutch, he entered a plea bargain that involved an acknowledgment of his guilt. However, Deutch reportedly entered that deal too late in the day to file the papers publicly, and Bill Clinton issued his pardon clearing Deutch of charges the very next day.

Observers have drawn parallels between Hillary Clinton's conduct and the actions that landed Deutch in trouble because, among other similarities, Deutch used the same system to conduct his personal and official affairs. The overlap resulted in the transfer of classified information onto an unclassified system.
"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
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2016, 02:29 PM
 
45/47
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2016, 08:05 AM
 
Clintons lawyers DO NOT WANT HER UNDER OATH. Why?


Clinton legal team moves to block deposition in email lawsuit - POLITICO
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2016, 11:06 AM
 
Ultimately, at this point, why should she? What's the advantage she gains? It won't get her votes.
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2016, 11:13 AM
 
I guess when you're a LIAR you just DON'T want to be put under oath. It leaves questions and looks really bad. Sounds like MORE nasty Commercials are on the way. I LOVE politics when it gets nasty. Show business for ugly people.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2016, 11:21 AM
 
The battle-lines have been so distinctly drawn already... I don't see her refusing to go under oath losing more votes, or agreeing getting her more.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2016, 11:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
I guess when you're a LIAR you just DON'T want to be put under oath. It leaves questions and looks really bad. Sounds like MORE nasty Commercials are on the way. I LOVE politics when it gets nasty. Show business for ugly people.
You mean like this fugly interviewee?
45/47
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2016, 11:41 AM
 
I feel this video demonstrates a lack of fashion sense as opposed to unattractiveness.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2016, 11:43 AM
 
Did Hillary have RK done, or did she start wearing contacts?
She looks like the ghost librarian from "Ghostbusters"
45/47
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2016, 11:47 AM
 
Or Harry Carry.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2016, 08:40 AM
 
What does it matter how she looks? Does it matter how Trump looks?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2016, 10:17 AM
 
Does it matter matter? No.

Does it matter? A whole lot. Ask Dick Nixon.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2016, 12:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
It's the new "Chewbacca Defense"
Marine’s defense for disseminating classified information will cite Hillary Clinton’s case
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...clintons-case/

Yep, the new "Chewbacca Defense"
Cop Accused Of Trading Favors For Sex Invokes 'Hillary Defense' - Fox Nation
45/47
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2016, 12:05 PM
 
I've heard the Chewbacca defense come up, so I googled it.

I'm not seeing how these are Chewbacca defenses.

I'd call them "what's good for the goose" defenses.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2016, 12:44 PM
 
Chewbacca Defense - TV Tropes

it sounds like Trump's whole campaign is the Chewbacca Defense.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2016, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
This is our post-rule of law society. When your top officials are officially above the law, those below them will follow. Arm yourselves, if you haven't already.
"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
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2016, 01:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
This is our post-rule of law society. When your top officials are officially above the law, those below them will follow. Arm yourselves, if you haven't already.


Very good post by Karl.
Many things that f**k up the US are rooted in erosion of the Rule of Law.

The Rule Of Law in [Market-Ticker]

-t
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2016, 02:22 PM
 
I predict people will go down, just not her, and thus those lower than the top will be put back in their place.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2016, 05:43 AM
 
Arstechnica has a pretty good summary of what and why things happened the way they happened by putting it into context with what technical solutions were available at the time. Apparently the main difference between her and Rice was that she actually handled emails herself on her Blackberry (rather than let staff deal with it exclusively). The State Department lacked the technical acumen to accommodate her and others:
Originally Posted by Former Director of Policy Planning
State’s technology is so antiquated that NO ONE uses a State-issued laptop and even high officials routinely end up using their home e-mail accounts to be able to get their work done quickly and effectively.
Also, she initially asked the NSA to provide her with the same hardened Blackberry that Obama got, but was refused. It seems the State Department needs to up its game.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2016, 10:46 AM
 
Still isn't a valid excuse for mishandling top secret info, not by a long shot.
"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
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2016, 12:03 PM
 
She didn't get the phone because of the high cost.
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2016, 12:04 PM
 
Sounds like DoS didn't ENFORCE THE RULES ON ITS OWN EMPLOYEES. Get rid of all upper mis-management.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2016, 12:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
She didn't get the phone because of the high cost.
When the DOD pays $300 for a hammer, I can only imagine how much State would pay for a smartphone!
45/47
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2016, 12:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
She didn't get the phone because of the high cost.
Was the phone more than the $7m they've spent trying to lynch her for not having it?

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2016, 01:00 PM
 
Seems you've never held a job requiring trust.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2016, 09:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Still isn't a valid excuse for mishandling top secret info, not by a long shot.
It puts things into perspective, and shows that the effort spent demonizing Hillary Clinton is misplaced. Clearly, the State Department, the NSA and the other federal agencies need to enable their heads of states, their bosses, to work securely and adapt more rapidly to changing demands. Clinton was the first Secretary of State to depend on her smartphone for work, and to not delegate all email tasks to staff. Colin Powell had to use an AOL email account (AOL of all companies!) because otherwise he couldn't send emails outside of the State Department and its approved list of contacts. Plus, now the chickens come to roost because Western states have refused to create a secure, end-to-end encrypted successor to email.
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
She didn't get the phone because of the high cost.
High cost?? Compared to what is a secure Blackberry expensive? And what about the cost associated to being able to handle state secrets in a secure manner? If you make it impossible for her to do her job in a safe manner, then you're asking for failure.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2016, 07:20 AM
 
She STILL Had access to encrypted laptops, but waaaa...its too heavy (like her carrying around all that extra fat was no problem). She was acting like a spoiled brat. SOP for the Clintons.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2016, 12:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
She STILL Had access to encrypted laptops, but waaaa...its too heavy (like her carrying around all that extra fat was no problem). She was acting like a spoiled brat. SOP for the Clintons.
I just don't buy that she "didn't know how to do email on a computer" and therefore wanted to stay BB only. If she could do it on a blackberry, she could use Outlook. If she can't do or learn how to do email on a computer, she's got no business being the head of anything, much less the nation, as the vast majority of 6 year olds are more competent than her.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:20 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,