yes, that again.

Is this a new revelation, or did we know this? If it's true, and I'm not saying it is yet...but if it is, is this a nothingburger? Doesn't sound like it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/29/chinese-company-reportedly-hacked-clintons-server-got-copy-every-email-in-real-time.html

Look, over there...shiny!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look, over there...shiny!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you don't think it's significant that China had all the emails off her server, at least some of which we know, had sensitive material on them?

Liberal=good, always, no exceptions, not ever.

Some of us can talk about this, and also be critical of Trump at the same time. I bet you can walk and chew gum at the same time, too. This wasn't a distraction, the beauty of not fanatically clinging to one ideology or the other, is I can look at all the news on its merits with an open mind. I voted for Trump. That doesn't mean that every time he gets bad press, I try to deflect to something bad that a democrat did. One has nothing to do with the other.

So you don't think it's significant that China had all the emails off her server, at least some of which we know, had sensitive material on them?

.

the clintons have been colluding with the communist chinese for a LONG time

No spence, it is not a Pokemon

This is just more exposure of the corruption in our government to cover things up or at least try to. Where is the justice? Oh I know where, they are trying to invent crimes since they found zero evidence of collusion. If that does not alarm even Democrats, then we are really screwed.

So they set up Hillary's mail server as a mail relay....that is just priceless.

So you don't think it's significant that China had all the emails off her server, at least some of which we know, had sensitive material on them?
Jim, what makes you think this story has even a shred of truth to it? The Fox link offers no evidence other than citing the Daily Caller which is one of the least trustworthy right wing tabloids out there. Further you have a president who will say ANYTHING to discredit or distract from his own problems.

It’s like you just desire so much the story to be true you’ll believe anything put before you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, what makes you think this story has even a shred of truth to it? The Fox link offers no evidence other than citing the Daily Caller which is one of the least trustworthy right wing tabloids out there. Further you have a president who will say ANYTHING to discredit or distract from his own problems.

It’s like you just desire so much the story to be true you’ll believe anything put before you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"makes you think this story has even a shred of truth to it?"

Because it didn't come from the New York Times.

Here's a better question.,..what makes you think it's fabricated? The answer, is that in your view, nothing that's critical of the left, can ever be valid on its face. Never.

"Further you have a president who will say ANYTHING to discredit or distract from his own problems."

You're saying Trump made this up and fed it to the media?

So they set up Hillary's mail server as a mail relay....that is just priceless.

I'll leave it to subject matter experts like you to talk about how reckless this was...

"makes you think this story has even a shred of truth to it?"

Because it didn't come from the New York Times.

Here's a better question.,..what makes you think it's fabricated? The answer, is that in your view, nothing that's critical of the left, can ever be valid on its face. Never.

"Further you have a president who will say ANYTHING to discredit or distract from his own problems."

You're saying Trump made this up and fed it to the media?
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if most of the story is completely fabricated to give Trump some twitter fodder and to stir the pot. So the FBI knew all along and lied for no reason? You believe this crap?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Interesting that the Daily Caller bases this on anonymous sources
Wasn't that a Trump tweet yesterday?

When you see “anonymous source,” stop reading the story, it is fiction!

18,767 replies 16,381 retweets 57,401 likes
Reply 19K Retweet 16K Like 57K
Donald J. Trump
‏
Verified account

@realDonaldTrump
3h3 hours ago
More
“Anonymous Sources are really starting to BURN the media.” @FoxNews The fact is that many anonymous sources don’t even exist. They are fiction made up by the Fake News reporters. Look at the lie that Fake CNN is now in. They got caught red handed! Enemy of the People!

11,140 replies 15,559 retweets 50,913 likes
Reply 11K Retweet 16K Like 51K

Anonymous sources can be fine as long as journalistic practices are followed like you’ll get with the NYtimes. The tabloids don’t give a crap about this though. They write whatever they want then Fox reports on the story like its news. This is how they launder the fake crap...and Jim can’t help but take the bait.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NyvIrslqW4



It came out a month ago during cross examining of Strzok


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/chinese-company-hacked-hillary-clintons-email-server-report

It wouldn’t surprise me at all if most of the story is completely fabricated to give Trump some twitter fodder and to stir the pot. So the FBI knew all along and lied for no reason? You believe this crap?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

At least one high level agent who was on the Hilary email team, was, shall we say, rooting for her.

At least one high level agent who was on the Hilary email team, was, shall we say, rooting for her.
And the IG found nothing that influenced his duty...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And the IG found nothing that influenced his duty...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not sure how you prove that, unless he leaves a document that says "I should do X, but because I hate Trump, I'll do Y".

And he got fired, so there's that.

So the thought is that in order to influence the election for Hillary, the FBI:
1. Weeks prior to the election announced that they were again investigating Hillarys emails
2. Kept the Steele report and the subsequent investigation secret
3. Andrew McCabe leaked the Clinton Foundation probe to the WSJ

Interesting that the Daily Caller bases this on anonymous sources
Wasn't that a Trump tweet yesterday?

When you see “anonymous source,” stop reading the story, it is fiction!

18,767 replies 16,381 retweets 57,401 likes
Reply 19K Retweet 16K Like 57K
Donald J. Trump
‏
Verified account

@realDonaldTrump
3h3 hours ago
More
“Anonymous Sources are really starting to BURN the media.” @FoxNews The fact is that many anonymous sources don’t even exist. They are fiction made up by the Fake News reporters. Look at the lie that Fake CNN is now in. They got caught red handed! Enemy of the People!

11,140 replies 15,559 retweets 50,913 likes
Reply 11K Retweet 16K Like 51K
Sources told the Daily Caller News Foundation that a Chinese-state owned firm located in the Washington, D.C., area had access to Clinton's emails in real time courtesy of a code embedded in the New York-based server which then made copies of the emails, some of which contained classified information.

The name of the company has not be disclosed. “We do know the name of the company. There are indications there are other ‘cutouts’ that were involved. I would be in a lot of trouble if I gave you the name,” an unnamed former intelligence officer told the outlet.

Pete's responding to his own posts now...good grief:rotf2:

Sixteen hours after President Trump tweeted about a right-wing media story alleging that China hacked Hillary Clinton's private email server, an FBI official is refuting the report in a comment to NBC News.



"The FBI has not found any evidence the (Clinton) servers were compromised," the official said.

It's the latest example of the widening breach between a president who traffics in unverified news accounts and the law enforcement agencies he frequently maligns.

Pete's responding to his own posts now...good grief:rotf2:

No, I just find it interesting that Trump in the same day tweets about the evils of anonymous sources and cites a news article that uses them as the basis of a claim.
Of course when it fits your con game, I mean story...........

"The FBI has not found any evidence the (Clinton) servers were compromised," the official said.


https://www.businessinsider.com/hackers-clinton-email-server-hack-2016-9

"Forensic analysis noted that on January 5, 2013, three IP addresses matching known Tor exit nodes were observed accessing" the account, meaning that an attacker using the Tor service — which encrypts and hides a person's online presence — logged in and browsed emails, folders, and attachments. The FBI was unable to determine who the attacker was."

Whats the point of the thread other than to deflect from Trump's issues ?? and now this story magically appears .... minus the emails to funny

Last time I checked she wasn't the POTUS

[QUOTE=wdmso;1149929]

Last time I checked she wasn't the POTUS

[/QUOTE

:rotflmao::kewl::claps::banano::wiggle::rotflmao:

Not sure how you prove that, unless he leaves a document that says "I should do X, but because I hate Trump, I'll do Y".

And he got fired, so there's that.
They looked at what his assignment was and the work he did. Found nothing to suggest he wasn’t impartial in his work.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.businessinsider.com/hackers-clinton-email-server-hack-2016-9

"Forensic analysis noted that on January 5, 2013, three IP addresses matching known Tor exit nodes were observed accessing" the account, meaning that an attacker using the Tor service — which encrypts and hides a person's online presence — logged in and browsed emails, folders, and attachments. The FBI was unable to determine who the attacker was."
That’s a Bill Clinton staffer’s account. FBI position seems pretty clear on Clinton.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That’s a Bill Clinton staffer’s account. FBI position seems pretty clear on Clinton.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Statement was made that her server wasn’t hacked, that account was on her server, and it was hacked
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Statement was made that her server wasn’t hacked, that account was on her server, and it was hacked
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I think you’re getting caught up in sementics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Whats the point of the thread other than to deflect from Trump's issues ?? and now this story magically appears .... minus the emails to funny

Last time I checked she wasn't the POTUS

the point, as i stated, was to ask if this was new info, and to get opinions. it doesn’t take away anyone ability to bash trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the point, as i stated, was to ask if this was new info, and to get opinions. it doesn’t take away anyone ability to bash trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
There’s a lot of new info, just no evidence to back any of it up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There’s a lot of new info, just no evidence to back any of it up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Kind of like the Trump collusion allegations?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Kind of like the Trump collusion allegations?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
No, not anything like that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There’s a lot of new info, just no evidence to back any of it up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and what qualifies as “evidence” to you, depends entirely, on whose ox is getting gored.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you’re getting caught up in sementics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you're unable to concede.

Simple question, was the server hacked? Yes or No.

Hint: Begins with "Y" ends with "es"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wasn't the article that was linked in the beginning of this thread about China hacking the emails? And the FBI stated that is not true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wasn't the article that was linked in the beginning of this thread about China hacking the emails? And the FBI stated that is not true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

try to pay attention :smash:

try to pay attention :smash:

That's why I asked those questions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wasn't the article that was linked in the beginning of this thread about China hacking the emails? And the FBI stated that is not true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's hard to keep track with so many versions floating around...I thought the FBI said it was hacked, but they didn't know by who?

and what qualifies as “evidence” to you, depends entirely, on whose ox is getting gored.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I see a lot of oxen with indictments and guilty pleas ... and none are email oxen

again once again you display them as some how the same :claps:

I see a lot of oxen with indictments and guilty pleas ... and none are email oxen

again once again you display them as some how the same :claps:

See here's the thing. When someone makes an accusation against a conservative, to Spence, that's sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. Hos threshold of what qualifies as evidence, is a bit different, when the subject is a democrat.

As to the lack of indictments, MAYBE (no way of knowing) some of that has to do with the fact that the senior FBI agent on that case, made it very clear that he was going to help Hilary beat Trump. Then there's that hilarious private meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lunch on the private jet, and Hilary's announcement days after her being cleared, that if she won, she'd consider keeping Lynch on as AG. Now, I never went to law school, but I do know what a quid pro quo is, and so do you.

I think you're unable to concede.

Simple question, was the server hacked? Yes or No.

Hint: Begins with "Y" ends with "es"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
A single email account of a staffer was accessed briefly by an unknown because someone likely guessed a password. This isn’t the same thing as a server being hacked which the FBI doesn’t believe ever occurred.

This is more like that FB request from a cute girl with no friends.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This isn’t the same thing as a server being hacked

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, It Is


Hack
[hak]

verb (used with object)

1. to cut, notch, slice, chop, or sever (something) with or as with heavy, irregular blows (often followed by up or down):
to hack meat; to hack down trees.

2. to break up the surface of (the ground).

3. to clear (a road, path, etc.) by cutting away vines, trees, brush, or the like:
They hacked a trail through the jungle.

4. to damage or injure by crude, harsh, or insensitive treatment; mutilate; mangle:
The editor hacked the story to bits.

5. to reduce or cut ruthlessly; trim:
The Senate hacked the budget severely before returning it to the House.

6. Slang. to deal or cope with; handle:
He can't hack all this commuting.

7. Computers.
A. to modify (a computer program or electronic device) or write (a program) in a skillful or clever way:
Developers have hacked the app.
I hacked my tablet to do some very cool things.
B. to circumvent security and break into (a network, computer, file, etc.), usually with malicious intent:
Criminals hacked the bank's servers yesterday.
Our team systematically hacks our network to find vulnerabilities.


Q. Were they authorized to access anything on that server?
A. No

Funny how the FBI and IG don’t share your catch all definition. You’re sort of reminding me of the Cable Guy right about now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny how the FBI and IG don’t share your catch all definition. You’re sort of reminding me of the Cable Guy right about now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Intelligence Community Inspector General, not the FBI, discovered the hack. That's what the report says. Now, if the ICIG didn't really uncover a hack, that should be easy to prove, someone can just ask them if it's true or not. If it's not true, the people reporting this will look stupid and dishonest.

I don't have a clue what the ICIG is.

Funny how the FBI and IG don’t share your catch all definition. You’re sort of reminding me of the Cable Guy right about now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's because politics isn't involved when I look at it. I look at it as the guy that needs to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Intelligence Community Inspector General, not the FBI, discovered the hack. That's what the report says. Now, if the ICIG didn't really uncover a hack, that should be easy to prove, someone can just ask them if it's true or not. If it's not true, the people reporting this will look stupid and dishonest.

I don't have a clue what the ICIG is.
Did you know this entire allegation is based off of a single remark made by a single house republican who says someone told hm about it?

Can you really believe the CIA would have this information and not give it to the FBI performing an investigation into her email?

Oh I forgot, the republicans running the show, Comey, Wray, Rosenstein etc... are all in Clinton’s pocket...that makes perfect sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's because politics isn't involved when I look at it. I look at it as the guy that needs to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Has nothing to do with politics. When some gets into your FB account and sends messages to your friends people don’t run around screaming the servers have been hacked.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you know this entire allegation is based off of a single remark made by a single house republican who says someone told hm about it?

Can you really believe the CIA would have this information and not give it to the FBI performing an investigation into her email?

Oh I forgot, the republicans running the show, Comey, Wray, Rosenstein etc... are all in Clinton’s pocket...that makes perfect sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Did you know this entire allegation is based off of a single remark made by a single house republican who says someone told hm about it?"

Did you know that is the same flimsy allegation was made against a Republican, you'd be calling for them to go right to sentencing?

Comey is a Republican? Sure, sure. Just like you were going to vote for McCain, or whoever it was..

Has nothing to do with politics. When some gets into your FB account and sends messages to your friends people don’t run around screaming the servers have been hacked.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This post speaks volumes....:rolleyes:

No wonder you think Hillary did nothing wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's because politics isn't involved when I look at it. I look at it as the guy that needs to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


:agree:


(well that and you would be making a career of creating little rocks out of big rocks at Leavenworth if you did that)

This post speaks volumes....:rolleyes:

No wonder you think Hillary did nothing wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I’ve never once said she didn’t do anything wrong, just that it didn’t rise the the criminal standard you want to apply. Comey was right, there’s no prosecutable case.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I still think trump should build his stupid wall out of hillaries emails. NO ONE CAN GET OVER THEM ☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I still think trump should build his stupid wall out of hillaries emails. NO ONE CAN GET OVER THEM ☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Brilliant
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’ve never once said she didn’t do anything wrong, just that it didn’t rise the the criminal standard you want to apply. Comey was right, there’s no prosecutable case.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It rises to the same criminal standard that others have been convicted of. Comey is not a prosecutor. Several prosecutors have said they'd love to have the opportunity to prosecute her. Pretty much an open and shut case. Comey is so informed about his job that he got fired, at the recommendation of the AG.

It rises to the same criminal standard that others have been convicted of.
No it really doesn’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No it really doesn’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Briliant.

https://theintercept.com/2015/08/12/hillary-clinton-sanctity-protecting-classified-information/

https://theintercept.com/2015/08/12/hillary-clinton-sanctity-protecting-classified-information/
Clinton’s email issues don’t fall anywhere under the espionage act of 1917. Not sure what he’s thinking,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clinton’s email issues don’t fall anywhere under the espionage act of 1917. Not sure what he’s thinking,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They fall under the Act, but various people or "experts" argue whether her actions are prosecutable. As to be expected, "conservatives" say they are, and "liberals" say they are not.

the Espionage act has been amended several times, and the wording is deemed by many to be too vague. It us argued that several have been convicted under the Act by stretching its language. But, nonetheless, they were found guilty and sentenced to prison terms. The point being that it was necessary to prevent future offenses.

Hillary certainly exposed classified info on an insufficiently encrypted server, rather than using the required government servers. Yet she defended prosecuting others because of the danger and precedent of careless mishandling of classified info. But she, of course, was above all that. It was not deemed important to prosecute her in order to prevent this from happening again.

When uneven application of the law openly exists, it destroys the people's confidence in government and its laws. The laws, apparently, apply to some, but not others. Greenwald points out Clinton's, and others in power, hypocrisy.

I'd like to see a debate on the subject between you and Greenwald. I would bet my money on him and that he would mop the floor with you.

Well, considering I’m not likely to debate him it’s somewhat pointless to deal in hypotheticals.

In all the cases he cites though there is evidence on intent to harm the US, willful hoarding of sensitive data or behavior with sensitive data that is contrary to the job that gave access to the information. With Clinton you have none of those. She wasn’t prosecuted because according to a Republican there wasn’t a prosecutable case. They tightened up the rules around use of email regardless after the fact...the investigation clearly found the protocols were not in step with the times.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, considering I’m not likely to debate him it’s somewhat pointless to deal in hypotheticals.

In all the cases he cites though there is evidence on intent to harm the US, willful hoarding of sensitive data or behavior with sensitive data that is contrary to the job that gave access to the information. With Clinton you have none of those. She wasn’t prosecuted because according to a Republican there wasn’t a prosecutable case. They tightened up the rules around use of email regardless after the fact...the investigation clearly found the protocols were not in step with the times.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh...so it wasn't that hillary was careless or stupid..it was the system(protocols).....that's so weak

Lester Holt and Lincoln Chaffee are/were(republicans)...she wasn't prosecuted because she is hillary...anyone else would have been prosecuted...which protocol is that derived from?

oh...so it wasn't that hillary was careless or stupid..it was the system(protocols).....that's so weak

Lester Holt and Lincoln Chaffee are/were(republicans)...she wasn't prosecuted because she is hillary...anyone else would have been prosecuted...which protocol is that derived from?
For what crime?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, considering IGreenwal’m not likely to debate him it’s somewhat pointless to deal in hypotheticals.

I didn't "intend" to deal with the notion. I said that I would like to see it--which was inspired by your "not sure what he's thinking" comment re Greenwald's article. He knows more about the subject than you do.

In all the cases he cites though there is evidence on intent to harm the US, willful hoarding of sensitive data or behavior with sensitive data that is contrary to the job that gave access to the information. With Clinton you have none of those. She wasn’t prosecuted because according to a Republican there wasn’t a prosecutable case. They tightened up the rules around use of email regardless after the fact...the investigation clearly found the protocols were not in step with the times.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He cited two cases where there was no evidence of intent to distribute the info, and there was a case afterwards of the young submarine sailor who was prosecuted for taking photos of his ship even though there was no evidence that he intended to harm the U.S.

In all cases, there was the mishandling of classified information. Intent to distribute or harm was not necessary for prosecution. Those would be the motivation for mishandling. The negligent mishandling was the common thread. And it was all that was necessary for conviction.

Clinton dangerously mishandled classified information. Her motivation or intent were irrelevant. She put the U.S. in far greater danger than the two Naval officers that Greenwald cited, and than the young submarine sailor. And who were all convicted for their inappropriate handling of information and who had no "intent" to distribute it in any way that would harm the country.

He cited two cases where there was no evidence of intent to distribute the info, and there was a case afterwards of the young submarine sailor who was prosecuted for taking photos of his ship even though there was no evidence that he intended to harm the U.S.

In all cases, there was the mishandling of classified information. Intent to distribute or harm was not necessary for prosecution. Those would be the motivation for mishandling. The negligent mishandling was the common thread. And it was all that was necessary for conviction.

Clinton dangerously mishandled classified information. Her motivation or intent were irrelevant. She put the U.S. in far greater danger than the two Naval officers that Greenwald cited, and than the young submarine sailor. And who were all convicted for their inappropriate handling of information and who had no "intent" to distribute it in any way that would harm the country.
In those cases you have people with access for intentionally stealing sensitive information under suspicious circumstances and in the case of the submariner obstructing justice. Again very different from some info bleeding into a non Gov system. As the FBI said they couldn’t find a single example of anyone being charged for similar.

Maybe Greenwald is just a hater?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

To hell with Hillary - she's done anyway. She'll never be eligible to get any kind of position that requires a security clearance so her gov career is over. Out to pasture for her and Bill.

For what crime?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device




Not safeguarding classified information.

In those cases you have people with access for intentionally stealing sensitive information under suspicious circumstances and in the case of the submariner obstructing justice. Again very different from some info bleeding into a non Gov system. As the FBI said they couldn’t find a single example of anyone being charged for similar.

Maybe Greenwald is just a hater?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There was no evidence in those cases of intent to harm the US.

Hillary's use of a private unsecured server was a very suspicious circumstance, very unnecessary, very against regulations. Having her subpoenaed emails destroyed was very suspicious and an obstruction of justice. Claiming that there was no classified info in any of those emails and that they were all personal in nature suspiciously resembled an attempt to cover up her negligence.

Since when did it become required that an infraction only counted if there was a previous one that was similar. Either it was a violation or it wasn't. The similarity to others, if needed, was the negligent mishandling of classified information. And her unnecessary and willful negligence put classified information more easily available in cyberspace which no less put the US in danger than those other cases.

As for hating, there is a lot of that going on now in government, in the media, on this forum, in society in general. I don't see Greenwald hating any more than what is now becoming the norm. He seems to hate hypocrisy, such as Hillary's. As a Progressive, he seems, by a lot of his other articles, to hate a lot of the things you do.

Not safeguarding classified information.
Did she even know any classified information was on her server? I'm not sure she did...

Hillary's use of a private unsecured server was a very suspicious circumstance, very unnecessary, very against regulations. Having her subpoenaed emails destroyed was very suspicious and an obstruction of justice. Claiming that there was no classified info in any of those emails and that they were all personal in nature suspiciously resembled an attempt to cover up her negligence.
I still don't see how if her use of a private server was for any nefarious means why would she EVER communicate with other government workers on government servers? If she was trying to be secretive she didn't do a good job of it.

As for the deleted emails, that was shown in the investigation to be an oops on the part of IT, had nothing to do with obstruction.

Since when did it become required that an infraction only counted if there was a previous one that was similar. Either it was a violation or it wasn't. The similarity to others, if needed, was the negligent mishandling of classified information. And her unnecessary and willful negligence put classified information more easily available in cyberspace which no less put the US in danger than those other cases.
The government handles cases of improper handling of sensitive information all the time. Clinton dealt with classified information all the time, using secure systems. What they say was classified on her server is mostly a bunch of fluff...

Did she even know any classified information was on her server? I'm not sure she did...

If she didn’t, then she’s a moron.....or she’s a liar so which is it?

As Sec State you don’t get to “Play Dumb” with classified material.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If she didn’t, then she’s a moron.....or she’s a liar so which is it?

As Sec State you don’t get to “Play Dumb” with classified material.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
So when someone emails you a NYT article about a drone strike you’re supposed to know another department gathered the same info through a sensitive channel? How many emails are in your account you’ve even read through fully?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So when someone emails you a NYT article about a drone strike you’re supposed to know another department gathered the same info through a sensitive channel? How many emails are in your account you’ve even read through fully?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have every email ever sent to me for the past 9 years.

Not a single one contains any classified material....because my email is on an unclass system. It actually takes some added effort to put classified info onto an unclass system, which anybody who works with classified systems knows. It just doesn’t “bleed” over like you like to think happens.

There ARE no excuses for negligence. I hope nobody trusts you with classified systems, because you obviously don’t take it seriously.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hmmm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have every email ever sent to me for the past 9 years.
That's because you're an IT g33k. Probably have hundreds of DAT tapes with faded markings down cellar.

Not a single one contains any classified material....because my email is on an unclass system. It actually takes some added effort to put classified info onto an unclass system, which anybody who works with classified systems knows. It just doesn’t “bleed” over like you like to think happens.
Of the emails in question the vast majority were classified retroactively. The most sensitive info was about drone strikes that had already been talked about in the NYTimes but was considered SAP by another group.

Your archives could be loaded with classified information if you could find a working drive to read the tapes :deadhorse: :hihi:

Can someone delete this thread and bad Jim from talking about Clinton's emails again...I see his OP went viral in the mainstream media :1poke:

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I just cannot state strongly enough how totally dishonest much of the Media is. Truth doesn’t matter to them, they only have their hatred & agenda. This includes fake books, which come out about me all the time, always anonymous sources, and are pure fiction. Enemy of the People!

7:11 AM - Aug 30, 2018
126K
84.8K people are talking about this


and some here are still worried about her e mails while the POTUS is attacking any department or persons all while promoting false narratives and make believe enemies... all to build an argument So that HE Trump can shut those critics down . while the GOP looks the other way

Of the emails in question the vast majority were classified retroactively. The most sensitive info was about drone strikes that had already been talked about in the NYTimes but was considered SAP by another group.


Isn't the fact that info may be classified retroactively another reason for using government servers rather than unsecured private ones? You are still guilty of exposing that classified material on your private server even if it was not classified at the time of interception.

And should someone's opinion on the degree of sensitivity of info reduce the culpability of one who has failed to protect it.

And things being "talked about" in the NY Times is not an impressive or convincing reference.

You spoke a lot of weasel words in your little paragraph.

Isn't the fact that info may be classified retroactively another reason for using government servers rather than unsecured private ones? You are still guilty of exposing that classified material on your private server even if it was not classified at the time of interception.

It speaks to the process. State didn't use much secure anything before this flap.

It speaks to the process. State didn't use much secure anything before this flap.

Are you saying that Hillary's server was just as secure as the government's servers? Why would she even apologize for using hers if that were so? If she had used State's servers, no investigation of her would have been needed.

And you dodged my question.

Did she even know any classified information was on her server? I'm not sure she did...

First of all, I bet she did - she just did not care. This kind of traffic does not BELONG on unclass systems.

I have every email ever sent to me for the past 9 years.

Not a single one contains any classified material....because my email is on an unclass system. It actually takes some added effort to put classified info onto an unclass system, which anybody who works with classified systems knows. It just doesn’t “bleed” over like you like to think happens.

There ARE no excuses for negligence. I hope nobody trusts you with classified systems, because you obviously don’t take it seriously.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


^^^



Can someone delete this thread and bad Jim from talking about Clinton's emails again...I see his OP went viral in the mainstream media :1poke:

Nope

Isn't the fact that info may be classified retroactively another reason for using government servers rather than unsecured private ones? You are still guilty of exposing that classified material on your private server even if it was not classified at the time of interception.

Yep - this is reason #2 why NO EFFING BODY runs their own server. Some stupid people *might* use Gmail or something online (which is less susceptible to compromise than Hillary's Server).

Reason #1 is it EFFING ILLEGAL.


And things being "talked about" in the NY Times is not an impressive or convincing reference.

There are new revelations of wiping Yoga and Wedding plans ? Like with a cloth?

It speaks to the process. State didn't use much secure anything before this flap.

Process:
Rice used a State.gov email account. Condi did not have her email on Hillary's server.

Are you saying that Hillary's server was just as secure as the government's servers? Why would she even apologize for using hers if that were so? If she had used State's servers, no investigation of her would have been needed.

And you dodged my question.
I meant secure as in a classified system. My understanding is that State has operated primarily on regular gov email up until recently.

I meant secure as in a classified system. My understanding is that State has operated primarily on regular gov email up until recently.

Does anyone know what he is trying to say here?

And you dodged my question again (you do that a lot).
But that's OK, JohnR answered it very well. Retroactive classification is a reason to use a secure server, not a reason to excuse transmitting it before it is classified.

Does anyone know what he is trying to say here?


probably something like "The increase in the price of the gigawatt units to run the Flux capacitors is driving up the costs of the manufacturing of widgets"

...or even he doesnt even know what he's saying

I'd go with option B

"My understanding is".........:laugha:

I meant secure as in a classified system. My understanding is that State has operated primarily on regular gov email up until recently.


State did not let me come in and expect their systems back then, BUT, they would have had (at minimum) standards for securing systems and experience in running less secure systems securely. They likely have had duplicate secure messaging running on a secure network for classified information that is heavily regulated. Yes, running these extra measures makes it more of a pain in the ass but it is done for a reason.

It can also be recalled, determined where stuff was sent (in event of gaining a classification status), archived, meet Guv retention standards, and yes, even be determined what different IT systems it can talk to or receive info from.


Does anyone know what he is trying to say here?

And you dodged my question again (you do that a lot).
But that's OK, JohnR answered it very well. Retroactive classification is a reason to use a secure server, not a reason to excuse transmitting it before it is classified.

He is trying to cover for his girl, as usual ; )

I was reiterating a lot of what Kevin said

Bump just to give people the same people a chance to criticize Trump. LOL

Bump just to give people the same people a chance to criticize Trump. LOL

Trump broke the rules and should
be held accountable and should never run for office again.

fair enough?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump broke the rules and should
be held accountable and should never run for office again.

fair enough?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's it? How many posts and threads did you make about Hillary but that is it for Trump even though what he did appears to be far worse?

And let's see all the people who commented if they come back and comment on Trump?

Bruce, TDF, John, SD, DZ, Scott.

It is Hillarius.

If he illegally moved classified material, he should be held accountable under the full extent of the law, up to and including prison time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:kewl:

That's it? How many posts and threads did you make about Hillary but that is it for Trump even though what he did appears to be far worse?

And let's see all the people who commented if they come back and comment on Trump?

Bruce, TDF, John, SD, DZ, Scott.

It is Hillarius.

tell me how
many posts you’d like me to make. this, coming from the guy who cries about how often i post. now you’re crying that i don’t post more. which is it?

do you have the same number of posts criticizing the left as you criticize the right?

i’ve made lots of posts here bashing trumps lack of ethics.

grasping at straws.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

tell me how
many posts you’d like me to make. this, coming from the guy who cries about how often i post. now you’re crying that i don’t post more. which is it?

do you have the same number of posts criticizing the left as you criticize the right? no, not even close. I don't praise the left in posts or threads other than to point out the hypocrisy of criticizing one side when the other side does the same thing.

i’ve made lots of posts here bashing trumps lack of ethics.

grasping at straws.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Make as many as you want. But you went on and on with hundreds of posts about the server but the more egregious stealing and destroying of classified docs seemed to be ok.

Make as many as you want. But you went on and on with hundreds of posts about the server but the more egregious stealing and destroying of classified docs seemed to be ok.

i make too many posts pointing out your sides hypocrisy.

everyone here agrees trump us a horribly flawed person, no one says otherwise, so there’s nothing to debate


but none of you can criticize a liberal, so that’s where there’s debate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

did he flush cartons of classified documents down the toilet before or after he peed on the hookers?

i make too many posts pointing out your sides hypocrisy.

everyone here agrees trump us a horribly flawed person, no one says otherwise, so there’s nothing to debate


but none of you can criticize a liberal, so that’s where there’s debate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think with the Rs giving themselves over to Trump they have shown more hypocrisy than any either party has ever shown.

I think with the Rs giving themselves over to Trump they have shown more hypocrisy than any either party has ever shown.

and i think democrats are just as comfortable ignoring a candidates personal behavior when they like his policies. The party of the clintons, the kennedy’s, and robert byrd, all of a sudden insists that character matters.

the whole time bill clinton was president, democrats chose to
ignore his ethics and judge him on policy. i actually agree with that logic, and i apply it to both sides.

zero hypocrisy.

you guys will post all day long about trumps flaws, and will
never admit to any flaws for any democrat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and i think democrats are just as comfortable ignoring a candidates personal behavior when they like his policies. The party of the clintons, the kennedy’s, and robert byrd, all of a sudden insists that character matters.

the whole time bill clinton was president, democrats chose to
ignore his ethics and judge him on policy. i actually agree with that logic, and i apply it to both sides.

zero hypocrisy.

you guys will post all day long about trumps flaws, and will
never admit to any flaws for any democrat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump has more flaws (and if he only had "flaws" it wouldn't be that big of a deal) than any Pres. in our lifetime. The Rs set the table for our current political climate by complaining about the most minor things (Obama wearing a brown suit and disgracing the office, saluting w/a cup of coffee in his hands, etc) and politicizing investigations (Bengahzi). So after 8 years of that and then Trump they deserve everything thrown at them.

Trump has more flaws (and if he only had "flaws" it wouldn't be that big of a deal) than any Pres. in our lifetime. The Rs set the table for our current political climate by complaining about the most minor things (Obama wearing a brown suit and disgracing the office, saluting w/a cup of coffee in his hands, etc) and politicizing investigations (Bengahzi). So after 8 years of that and then Trump they deserve everything thrown at them.

So Bill Clinton and the Kennedy’s have an acceptable
number flaws, Trump has too many. That’s convenient!

what’s the maximum number of acceptable flaws, anyway?

right, you call people retards, but just everyone else who sets the table. poor you. poor, poor you.

democrats didn’t do any of it. democrats haven’t been calling everyone who disagrees with them racist Nazis since W was president, nope.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So Bill Clinton and the Kennedy’s have an acceptable
number flaws, Trump has too many. That’s convenient!

what’s the maximum number of acceptable flaws, anyway? Did I ever say that?

right, you call people retards, but just everyone else who sets the table. poor you. poor, poor you. Don't lie. Did I call anyone a retard or was I mocking the conservatives who had no problem watching Trump mock a handicapped reporter? I guess some people don't have the handicapped's backs. Is this like when you said Pete went after TDF's family and Pete finally pulled up the quote and this is not what happened?

democrats didn’t do any of it. democrats haven’t been calling everyone who disagrees with them racist Nazis since W was president, nope.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And Rs haven't been calling everyone who disagrees with them names since forever.

And Rs haven't been calling everyone who disagrees with them names since forever.

seriously...are you 12 years old?

And Rs haven't been calling everyone who disagrees with them names since forever.

i agree they have.

you’re the one, not me, who said “the R’a set the table for the current climate.”

again, you can’t concede the behavior of the left. none of you can.

hilary says we’re deplorable and irredeemable, Biden says we want to put blacks back in chains. Obama
says republicans “hate all the time”.

poor, poor you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i agree they have.

you’re the one, not me, who said “the R’a set the table for the current climate.” yes, one in which is far worse than it ever has been.

again, you can’t concede the behavior of the left. none of you can. you keep claiming that bc no one posted something about the

hilary says we’re deplorable and irredeemableshe actually said like 50%. Looking at the % who can't concede Biden won, I would say she underestimated. and never mind her apology., Biden says we want to put blacks back in chains. Obama
says republicans “hate all the time”.

poor, poor you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't worry about me. I don't need to come here 7 days a week for all hours to answer every post that I don't like.

Don't worry about me. I don't need to come here 7 days a week for all hours to answer every post that I don't like.

11 years old? :)

Don't worry about me. I don't need to come here 7 days a week for all hours to answer every post that I don't like.

but you’d never, ever say that to pete ow wdmso.

everything is ok when liberals do it!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again not sure why Jim didn’t post this story. I know he and other were more concerned That Obama wasn’t wearing a mask Priorities?

National Archives asks Justice Dept. to investigate Trump’s handling of White House records

So let’s see this goes 1 of 2 ways

He tore them up and because he’s a baby.

Or He took and Tore them up because he’s a baby and trying to hide from the Truth or lies those documents may hold

But but Hillary emails. How do it go?

Oh yea. LOCK HER UP !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but you’d never, ever say that to pete ow wdmso.

everything is ok when liberals do it!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I like you better.

Again not sure why Jim didn’t post this story. I know he and other were more concerned That Obama wasn’t wearing a mask Priorities?

National Archives asks Justice Dept. to investigate Trump’s handling of White House records

So let’s see this goes 1 of 2 ways

He tore them up and because he’s a baby.

Or He took and Tore them up because he’s a baby and trying to hide from the Truth or lies those documents may hold

But but Hillary emails. How do it go?

Oh yea. LOCK HER UP !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Normally he'd have his lawyer or accountant hide all the criminal acts, so he can keep his hands clean and say hey I didn't know. I guess in the white house maybe it wasn't that easy to set up the usual fall guys.

Frankly tearing up those documents is against federal law, have they not charged him yet because more is coming down the line? His actions are criminal both on the records and the attempt to change the election, wonder if this AG has the balls to charge the idiot. He surrounded himself with like idiots, who just continue to go on talk shows to reveal what they were attempting, what the plan was and who was involved. It is amazing that this idiot still has such a grip on the republican party, I almost hope he can run again, as I think it would bring out a massive turnout to keep him out of the white house again.

Again not sure why Jim didn’t post this story. I know he and other were more concerned That Obama wasn’t wearing a mask Priorities?

National Archives asks Justice Dept. to investigate Trump’s handling of White House records

So let’s see this goes 1 of 2 ways

He tore them up and because he’s a baby.

Or He took and Tore them up because he’s a baby and trying to hide from the Truth or lies those documents may hold

But but Hillary emails. How do it go?

Oh yea. LOCK HER UP !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She didn't get locked up. So . . . goose/gander

The National Archives (not DOJ or FBI) recovered 15(?) boxes of documents from Mar a Lago 13 months after they "left" the White House.

How many boxes would have been uncovered on January 21st, 2021?
We'll never know how much was removed, shredded, or flushed during the interim.

Normally he'd have his lawyer or accountant hide all the criminal acts, so he can keep his hands clean and say hey I didn't know. I guess in the white house maybe it wasn't that easy to set up the usual fall guys.

Frankly tearing up those documents is against federal law, have they not charged him yet because more is coming down the line? His actions are criminal both on the records and the attempt to change the election, wonder if this AG has the balls to charge the idiot. He surrounded himself with like idiots, who just continue to go on talk shows to reveal what they were attempting, what the plan was and who was involved. It is amazing that this idiot still has such a grip on the republican party, I almost hope he can run again, as I think it would bring out a massive turnout to keep him out of the white house again.

Another report just came out that he clogged WH toilets trying to flush documents. No wonder he complained that people had to flush their toilet 10 - 15 times.

If only we could flush Trump from our minds and politics, the guy is going to go down in history as the nut job we (meaning you) elected to president. Top secret files taken to his golf course, missing phone logs, flushing records in the Oval Office toilet; if you saw this in a movie you’d change the channel as it’s to fu*ked up.

If only we could flush Trump from our minds and politics, the guy is going to go down in history as the nut job we (meaning you) elected to president. Top secret files taken to his golf course, missing phone logs, flushing records in the Oval Office toilet; if you saw this in a movie you’d change the channel as it’s to fu*ked up.

some dummies continue to obsess over him....

Another report just came out that he clogged WH toilets trying to flush documents.



the source is a NY Times reporter so the source is questionable at best...and this is what was written/said...

“I learned that staff in the White House residence would periodically find the toilet clogged, the engineer would have to come and fix it. And what the engineer would generally find would be wads of, you know, wet, printed paper, meaning it was not toilet paper, this was either notes or some other piece of paper that they believed he had thrown down the toilet,” Haberman said during an appearance on CNN on Thursday morning.“What it could be, Brianna, could be anybody’s guess. It could be post-its, it could be notes he wrote to himself, it could be other things,” Haberman added. “It certainly does add, as you said, another dimension to what we know about how he handled material in the White House.”


it's fun that the left has become so insane that some are fretting and wondering about what was in trump's toilet...

to many GOP dummies continue to obsess over him....

Fixed

Everything Donald Trump accused others of doing, whether it was Hillary Clinton or his Republican rivals, we keep finding out he did it himself. Literally everything.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She didn't get locked up. So . . . goose/gander

Why is that the line of defense from Conservatives and Republicans on anything Trump

No blood no foul. Or they didn’t succeed ? Stepping right over Intent as if it doesn’t matter


Some Trump records taken to Mar-a-Lago clearly marked as classified, including documents at ‘top secret’ level

But but
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Stepping right over Intent as if it doesn’t matter

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you are constantly quick assume intent....


"Citing two people familiar with the matter, The Post reported on Thursday......

It is unclear how many classified documents were recovered by the National Archives, according to The Post.

Two sources told the newspaper that some records had labels signaling that the information within was very sensitive...

The National Archives has reportedly asked the Department of Justice to look into Trump’s handling of documents related to his time in the White House following the reports of records being seized from Mar-a-Lago.

The Post reported on Wednesday that the referral from the National Archives sparked conversation among federal prosecutors about potentially probing if Trump committed a crime by not properly turning over records.


It is reportedly unclear, however, if the department will go ahead with such an effort."


geez....I wonder why?

you are constantly quick assume intent....


"Citing two people familiar with the matter, The Post reported on Thursday......

It is unclear how many classified documents were recovered by the National Archives, according to The Post.

Two sources told the newspaper that some records had labels signaling that the information within was very sensitive...

The National Archives has reportedly asked the Department of Justice to look into Trump’s handling of documents related to his time in the White House following the reports of records being seized from Mar-a-Lago.

The Post reported on Wednesday that the referral from the National Archives sparked conversation among federal prosecutors about potentially probing if Trump committed a crime by not properly turning over records.


It is reportedly unclear, however, if the department will go ahead with such an effort."


geez....I wonder why?

Seems you and I have a different understanding of unclear .

It tells me no decisions have been made


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seems you and I have a different understanding of unclear .

It tells me no decisions have been made


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you'd think they'd be busting down the doors before any more top secret documents are flushed down the toilet

Is now a good time to ask how much classified information Trump and Jared Kushner passed along to MBS, Putin, Orbán, Bolsonaro and their other autocrat buddies? And how many documents they hid or destroyed related to that?

Is now a good time to ask how much classified information Trump and Jared Kushner passed along to MBS, Putin, Orbán, Bolsonaro and their other autocrat buddies? And how many documents they hid or destroyed related to that?

seems like the spy agencies were happy to monitor the trump admin...you'd think they would be all over it....

Why is that the line of defense from Conservatives and Republicans on anything Trump

No blood no foul. Or they didn’t succeed ? Stepping right over Intent as if it doesn’t matter


Some Trump records taken to Mar-a-Lago clearly marked as classified, including documents at ‘top secret’ level

But but
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't know how you got all that from my sarcastic what-aboutism. You might be the king of what-aboutisms on this forum. I just threw it back atcha. And as for intent, Hillary's intent was clearly to hide information she had no right to hide.

I heard trump used Bleachbit to clean the toilet after he flushed the troves of top secret documents, then he injected some to protect him from covid

the unnamed source who was close to the toilet said that much of the info was on Post-It notes...I didn't know we were storing Top Secret information on Post-It notes these days.....