Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1103374)

Not sure where you are getting your info. The US Justice Department signed off on the use of waterboarding. That necessarily means it's not a crime. They said it was within the law, and they are the authority on that. When the lawyers for the Justice Dept tell you that something is legal, that means it's legal.

Hilary is being investigated for possibly breaking the law.

Apples and oranges.

People are free to decide whether or not to hold Trump or Hilary accountable for his support of waterboarding, or her belief that the rules don't apply to her.

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1103362)

Now, now - lets not confuse Spence's desire to Baghdad Bob the Hillary Campaign for being a paid shill for them. Clearly he does it for free. And please no overly derisive comments.



NetworkWorld? A Bad source? It is an IT networking magazine around for 30 years - probably have a few hundred copies lying around between home and work, more in the landfill.

For an IT guy it is the equivalent to a magazine called PAINT for Painters, FOOD for a chef, and WORKERS SOLIDARITY for Bernie. A tool of the trade.

For the technical response it is scary because disabling the filters is different and significantly beyond merely whitelisting HRC's personal email server. There was also a fairly significant difference in Trend SMEX 8 and SMEX 10 (11 is the current version). Also, some of these systems use lookup services from other vendors and are admant about not letting things through from coming from "Known Spammers" or bad domains. So if her server or one of the client computers had been infected and was spamming viruses / malware and was being explicitly blocked, her email might not get through even if on a whitelist - requiring the State IT department to disable the ScanMail for Exchange system - basicaly the anti-virus / anti-malware scanning system for the state departments email.

If I did that I and compromised a client system would be fired. If my client told me to do that I woulld have them sign an AGA release (Against Geek Advice). If I did that at a .GOV I might go to jail.

Sounds to me like the IT guys had been beaten up by poli-weenies above them in the chain of command.

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1103391)

in the world of of hypotheticals yes there is a very slim possibilities the email issue could have impacted operations on the ground .. but I know for a Fact that if Trump becomes POTUS he has definitely put every Service member at risk with his statement on torture even if he dosn't change the policy who or what countries are going to thinks thats True?

Hillarys emails even if hacked Dont forget our friend Israel. were stolen not given to or enemies by hillary unlike like Snowden who many who want her in jail hail him as a Hero..

I am no Fan of Hillary but i take issues with the GOP and there investigation after investigation and investigation hearing and hearing all in the hopes of finding something like in the Ken Star days and come up with Nada .. all while the infrastructure and bigger problem get little attention and Americans suffer for it .. but their base gets all the attention for votes its crazy

I found this and sums up it up better than I can ..

There’s a certain twisted logic to this. The unhinged right starts with the ideologically satisfying answer – President Obama and Hillary Clinton are guilty of horrible Benghazi-related wrongdoing – and then works backwards, looking for “proof” that matches the conclusion. When their ostensible allies fail to tell these activists what they want to hear, they could reevaluate their bogus assumptions, but it’s vastly easier to believe Republicans have let them down.

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1103396)

My point was . if your not willing to attach your name to a story .. how is anyone to verify you know what you claim to know or even know what your talking about... thats all

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1103396)

YOUR SPOT ON THERE :)

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1103374)

Not sure where you are getting your info. The US Justice Department signed off on the use of waterboarding. That necessarily means it's not a crime. They said it was within the law, and they are the authority on that. When the lawyers for the Justice Dept tell you that something is legal, that means it's legal.

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1103359)

The arrogance and obvious psychosis reminds me of a villan in a James Bond movie .

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1103402)

So that invalidates a well written (from an IT standpoint) article?

Does not invalidate.. nor Validates the article .. no name no skin in the game
[COLOR=Red]

Haha

The IT guys were freaking out about this - I don't know it for fact but every IT guy I know (that is not a Hillbot) would hate this

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1103398)

The Benghazi investigations and the Judicial Watch FOIA requests are what uncovered the Hillary email handling. And they had roadblock after road block put up in front of them.

The Benghazi commission raised some interesting points that would not have been raised otherwise. And yes, the did fairly well establish that the Obama Admin politicized the event (Hillary and Rice) to benefit Obama with an election just under 2 months away. To support their Narrative.

WTH does Israel have to do with Hillary's email server?

And it frankly doesn't matter whether Hillary gave emails or they were stolen because they WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

"
There’s a certain twisted logic to this. The unhinged right starts with the ideologically satisfying answer – President Obama and Hillary Clinton are guilty of horrible Benghazi-related wrongdoing – and then works backwards, looking for “proof” that matches the conclusion. When their ostensible allies fail to tell these activists what they want to hear, they could reevaluate their bogus assumptions, but it’s vastly easier to believe Republicans have let them down."

THat you Spence :faga:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103411)

And this is the problem. If you think she's an evil villain you'll just see everything she does under that lens. This is what got us into Iraq.

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1103392)

Jim you just said what spence has been saying about the email thing ( if at the time it wasn't illegal how can it be Illegal now ) that seem to be your stance on the topic ... but currently it is not legal for the CIA or the Military .. to waterboard


Executive Order 13491, issued by Barack Obama on January 22, 2009 (two days after Obama's inauguration) revoked Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007. It restricted the CIA and other Executive Agencies to proceed with interrogations "strictly in accord with the principles, processes, conditions, and limitations [Army Field Manual 2 22.3] prescribes".[9] Persons associated with the U.S. government were advised that they could rely on the manual, but could not rely upon "any interpretation of the law governing interrogation -- including interpretations of Federal criminal laws, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3,


you mean this guy

http://lawnewz.com/video/bush-doj-la...s-federal-law/

Waterboarding is illegal, says US justice department official

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103411)

And this is the problem. If you think she's an evil villain you'll just see everything she does under that lens. This is what got us into Iraq.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1103427)

If memory serves, she was a huge proponent of invading Iraq. Your criticism of the hawks seems, well, quite selective, does it not?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103429)

Your memory fails you. Perhaps you never understood it to begin with?

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1103418)

WTH does Israel have to do with Hillary's email server?

they are on the short list of potential Countries who got the supposed hacked emails

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1103431)

Again, an insult with no facts, shocker. You're saying I'm wrong that supported the invasion?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1103431)

Again, an insult with no facts, shocker. You're saying I'm wrong that supported the invasion?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103436)

I'm saying you're wrong that she was a "huge proponent of invading Iraq."

She certainly voted to authorize the use of force, but that bill was conditional on a failure of inspections and sanctions which were working to the disappointment of the Administration. Clinton also said clearly that she didn't feel that the US invading without a proper coalition was justified.

If anything her vote was to make an invasion more difficult.

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1103437)

The IAEA inspections were working? There was some agreement on the status of atomic research by the Iraqis but not on Chem or Bio, where they were being stonewalled.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103436)

I'm saying you're wrong that she was a "huge proponent of invading Iraq."

She certainly voted to authorize the use of force, but that bill was conditional on a failure of inspections and sanctions which were working to the disappointment of the Administration. Clinton also said clearly that she didn't feel that the US invading without a proper coalition was justified.

If anything her vote was to make an invasion more difficult.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103438)

There was certainly stonewalling on inspections but the IAEA said they could get the job done if given time. The sanctions absolutely were working...

That why they couldn't put it up for another UN vote, they couldn't make the case.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1103426)

The U.S. justice dept signed off on what bush did. Trump hasn't done anything yet. Hilary has. If it was as simple as saying that what she did was legal at the time, why is obamas justice dept investigating?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1103451)

thats like investigating someone for for murder and not getting a conviction but finding out they are stealing cable and hold that up as a success spending millions of dollars for a cable crime that may or may not be a punishable under the law

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103436)

I'm saying you're wrong that she was a "huge proponent of invading Iraq."

She certainly voted to authorize the use of force, but that bill was conditional on a failure of inspections and sanctions which were working to the disappointment of the Administration. Clinton also said clearly that she didn't feel that the US invading without a proper coalition was justified.

If anything her vote was to make an invasion more difficult.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1103460)

Who said this...

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103463)

Source?

I mean a credible one, not the made up quote you posted.

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood (Post 1103469)

Hillary: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...t2jZ5UwwqMybIi
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103463)

Source?

I mean a credible one, not the made up quote you posted.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1103473)

You might want to lie down before you watch this. Not merely a transcript, but a video of her speech. I suppose you'll tell us that this is actually Newt Gingrich impersonating her. You watch this, and tell me if I'm wrong that she believed the invasion was the right thing to do. No wiggle room there, Spence, you dug yourself into a deep, dark hole on this one. Looking forward to your reply...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0

Originally Posted by nightfighter (Post 1103470)

Sorry for your quandary, Kevin... But I would really appreciate getting back the 15 seconds I wasted figuring out who the hell H is.... I sure as hell aint going to waste anymore of my time reading dribble that has anything to do with her.... Please refrain from such in the future as life is precious to some of us,,,,,,:devil2: