Hillary won more votes for President

BS44325

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Kat said:

Thanks all. With all the retroactive classifying and stuff, it's not a surprise that mistakes are made. It's a huge amount of emails. I think it was something like 20+ million emails of the Bush Admin that used private RNC servers but the emails were never preserved so couldn't be investigated, wasn't it? Hopefully, they made no mistakes. I'm sure they were careful so no classified material was spread around.

Except classified material was spread around. That has been acknowledged today. It was also acknowledged that it is highly likely foreign agencies accessed this information.

No that wasn't acknowledged at all. He said that they saw no evidence that the info was accessed but he said it would be likely that they wouldn't detect that type of evidence if it had occurred.

This is what foreign agencies do you simply refuse to read between the lines.

This article just nails it

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/05/hillary-clintons-email-problems-might-be-even-worse-than-we-thought/

Why you all want to cover for her when you still have an opportunity to nominate someone else makes absolutely mo sense to me.

I don't have the opportunity to nominate someone else since I'm not a super delegate. So the choice continues to be Trump vs. Clinton. And there's still no comparison as to who has the judgment, wisdom, experience, acumen, etc. to be POTUS. It ain't Trump.

The GOP convention has favorable rules to nominate someone else. I'll flip over to Trump's thread and look for your condemnation over there.

Well I'm not "for" Trump and would be happy to see someone else but that being said Clinton's "judgement, wisdom, experience, acumen, etc." has just been completely indicted. You should be moving for a new nominee instead of blocking for her.

Thanks for telling me what I should do. But alas, I'm good.

No worries but I think you're being shortsighted. You don't want Trump but you are now all in on the most wounded of candidates and are giving him his best opportunity to win.

Negative. I don't believe this story will carry much longer. We still have a month until the conventions. After that it's debates, rallies, etc. There will also be a renewed focus on Trump and his tax returns which will show his low net worth and abysmal record on charity, plus whatever carnival show distraction he creates.

Here's the thing. For HRC supporters, nothing changed today. We knew it was a mistake to have your own server. She said that months ago herself. What happened today is the end of the criminal probe. Somehow you (and Trump) think that is some massive indictment.

She has lied to the media and the American people since this began. Lie after lie after lie. She may not have been indicted but it is now proven beyond all doubt that she lied. That means something and for the Hillary supporters who actually value honesty in government it will be hard for them to look the other way.

http://time.com/4393705/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-james-comey/

How many emails do you send a day? I probably send 75-100. I get like 300. Quick math has me sending 75/day x 20 days per month x 12 x 4 years.. That's 72k emails. We have controls to prevent NPI (non-public information) from escaping our servers. They didn't exist in 2008, we had to self monitor. If someone were to ask me last year if I ever sent an email with NPI between 2008 and 2012 I would say, "I don't know.. not to my knowledge, or not intentionally". If it turns out I did send 30 of those over the course of 4 years (which I probably did), would that make me a liar? 30/72000 = six sigma quality.

And that's what she said. How the fuck can you know for 100% everything you did 8 years ago on email.

Except you didn't intentionally set up your own server at the outset with minimal security in order to avoid transparency. There was a government system already in place that existed to catalogue and protect this data. Your claim that she instituted her own system to improve efficiency is absolutely laughable and she can't then use the deficiencies of this same system to insulate her from her lies.

It's documented that during her tenure there was no mobile use of email available at State. You had to be at a terminal. Do you travel for business? I do. I have a cell, a Surface, and an Ipad. And I use them all to work and retrieve email. If I could only get email when I got to one of my sites, I'd be fucked. That's how it was.

There was no mobile for a reason. I assume you understand the difference between her job and your's?

Gern Blansten

Kat said:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286539-state-dept-feuds-with-fbi-after-criticism

This is the republican in him coming out in my opinion. He issued an honest opinion regarding how there was nothing to indict but still got his jab in.

What other agency would have escaped this type of criticism? Without the FBI diving into each department we will never be able to say for sure. The GOP knew that even if nothing was there they would still have ammo.

Degeneratefk

The last thing Clinton is is wounded. She is doing jumping jacks. The fbi just handed her the presidency. It was either going to be her or sanders. Now that there will be no charges filed, Hilary is going to win.

If you think for a second that Clinton is wounded from not being indicted, you're really not paying attention to anything.

mrussel1

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Kat said:

Thanks all. With all the retroactive classifying and stuff, it's not a surprise that mistakes are made. It's a huge amount of emails. I think it was something like 20+ million emails of the Bush Admin that used private RNC servers but the emails were never preserved so couldn't be investigated, wasn't it? Hopefully, they made no mistakes. I'm sure they were careful so no classified material was spread around.

Except classified material was spread around. That has been acknowledged today. It was also acknowledged that it is highly likely foreign agencies accessed this information.

No that wasn't acknowledged at all. He said that they saw no evidence that the info was accessed but he said it would be likely that they wouldn't detect that type of evidence if it had occurred.

This is what foreign agencies do you simply refuse to read between the lines.

This article just nails it

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/05/hillary-clintons-email-problems-might-be-even-worse-than-we-thought/

Why you all want to cover for her when you still have an opportunity to nominate someone else makes absolutely mo sense to me.

I don't have the opportunity to nominate someone else since I'm not a super delegate. So the choice continues to be Trump vs. Clinton. And there's still no comparison as to who has the judgment, wisdom, experience, acumen, etc. to be POTUS. It ain't Trump.

The GOP convention has favorable rules to nominate someone else. I'll flip over to Trump's thread and look for your condemnation over there.

Well I'm not "for" Trump and would be happy to see someone else but that being said Clinton's "judgement, wisdom, experience, acumen, etc." has just been completely indicted. You should be moving for a new nominee instead of blocking for her.

Thanks for telling me what I should do. But alas, I'm good.

No worries but I think you're being shortsighted. You don't want Trump but you are now all in on the most wounded of candidates and are giving him his best opportunity to win.

Negative. I don't believe this story will carry much longer. We still have a month until the conventions. After that it's debates, rallies, etc. There will also be a renewed focus on Trump and his tax returns which will show his low net worth and abysmal record on charity, plus whatever carnival show distraction he creates.

Here's the thing. For HRC supporters, nothing changed today. We knew it was a mistake to have your own server. She said that months ago herself. What happened today is the end of the criminal probe. Somehow you (and Trump) think that is some massive indictment.

She has lied to the media and the American people since this began. Lie after lie after lie. She may not have been indicted but it is now proven beyond all doubt that she lied. That means something and for the Hillary supporters who actually value honesty in government it will be hard for them to look the other way.

http://time.com/4393705/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-james-comey/

How many emails do you send a day? I probably send 75-100. I get like 300. Quick math has me sending 75/day x 20 days per month x 12 x 4 years.. That's 72k emails. We have controls to prevent NPI (non-public information) from escaping our servers. They didn't exist in 2008, we had to self monitor. If someone were to ask me last year if I ever sent an email with NPI between 2008 and 2012 I would say, "I don't know.. not to my knowledge, or not intentionally". If it turns out I did send 30 of those over the course of 4 years (which I probably did), would that make me a liar? 30/72000 = six sigma quality.

And that's what she said. How the fuck can you know for 100% everything you did 8 years ago on email.

Except you didn't intentionally set up your own server at the outset with minimal security in order to avoid transparency. There was a government system already in place that existed to catalogue and protect this data. Your claim that she instituted her own system to improve efficiency is absolutely laughable and she can't then use the deficiencies of this same system to insulate her from her lies.

It's documented that during her tenure there was no mobile use of email available at State. You had to be at a terminal. Do you travel for business? I do. I have a cell, a Surface, and an Ipad. And I use them all to work and retrieve email. If I could only get email when I got to one of my sites, I'd be fucked. That's how it was.

There was no mobile for a reason. I assume you understand the difference between her job and your's?

I do understand the difference although you don't since you don't know what I do. But I can assure you that our security provisions are obscene. I work in about the most scrutinized business in this country (unfairly so). The point is that the server was set up to be able to communicate efficiently. The intent was not to hide emails but not to receive secure emails. That's why out of the mounds of emails, they found 50 that had confidential plus info. That's pretty low ratio and why the FBI determined there was no 'intent' and that they could not find evidence of damage.

BS44325

Gern Blansten said:

Kat said:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286539-state-dept-feuds-with-fbi-after-criticism

This is the republican in him coming out in my opinion. He issued an honest opinion regarding how there was nothing to indict but still got his jab in.

What other agency would have escaped this type of criticism? Without the FBI diving into each department we will never be able to say for sure. The GOP knew that even if nothing was there they would still have ammo.

I think you have it backwards. The "jab" was honest while the failure to indict, which is up to Lorreta Lynch and the justice department, was not honest. Comey knew that Lynch wouldn't prosecute and his very detailed statement appears to show his disgust with the result. As per below Comey clearly outlined that crimes were committed.

https://youtu.be/ROI-n8gkCLI

Degeneratefk

pjalive21 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Kat said:

Thanks all. With all the retroactive classifying and stuff, it's not a surprise that mistakes are made. It's a huge amount of emails. I think it was something like 20+ million emails of the Bush Admin that used private RNC servers but the emails were never preserved so couldn't be investigated, wasn't it? Hopefully, they made no mistakes. I'm sure they were careful so no classified material was spread around.

Except classified material was spread around. That has been acknowledged today. It was also acknowledged that it is highly likely foreign agencies accessed this information.

No that wasn't acknowledged at all. He said that they saw no evidence that the info was accessed but he said it would be likely that they wouldn't detect that type of evidence if it had occurred.

This is what foreign agencies do you simply refuse to read between the lines.

This article just nails it

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/05/hillary-clintons-email-problems-might-be-even-worse-than-we-thought/

Why you all want to cover for her when you still have an opportunity to nominate someone else makes absolutely mo sense to me.

I don't have the opportunity to nominate someone else since I'm not a super delegate. So the choice continues to be Trump vs. Clinton. And there's still no comparison as to who has the judgment, wisdom, experience, acumen, etc. to be POTUS. It ain't Trump.

The GOP convention has favorable rules to nominate someone else. I'll flip over to Trump's thread and look for your condemnation over there.

Well I'm not "for" Trump and would be happy to see someone else but that being said Clinton's "judgement, wisdom, experience, acumen, etc." has just been completely indicted. You should be moving for a new nominee instead of blocking for her.

Thanks for telling me what I should do. But alas, I'm good.

No worries but I think you're being shortsighted. You don't want Trump but you are now all in on the most wounded of candidates and are giving him his best opportunity to win.

Negative. I don't believe this story will carry much longer. We still have a month until the conventions. After that it's debates, rallies, etc. There will also be a renewed focus on Trump and his tax returns which will show his low net worth and abysmal record on charity, plus whatever carnival show distraction he creates.

Here's the thing. For HRC supporters, nothing changed today. We knew it was a mistake to have your own server. She said that months ago herself. What happened today is the end of the criminal probe. Somehow you (and Trump) think that is some massive indictment.

Bill meets AG on a plane for 30mins "coincidentally" to exchange cooking recipes

Obama meets with director of FBI privately to play a friendly game of checkers

FBI meets with Hillary privately for yoga

July 5th-no indictment...nothing to see here

what she did is criminal regardless of what the FBI decided today because they were bought and paid for with promises and money...she should lose all clearances which would eliminate her from running for president.....might as well retract the punishment of Gen. Patreaus who did less than what she has


if we get 8 years of this fraud kiss this country goodbye...hell I already did today

You people said the same thing when Obama won.

Btw, Petraeus handed classified document to an author writing his biography who he was banging. He also pled guilty. If you can see the difference between him and hilary, you're not looking at the situation objectively.

Gern Blansten

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Kat said:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286539-state-dept-feuds-with-fbi-after-criticism

This is the republican in him coming out in my opinion. He issued an honest opinion regarding how there was nothing to indict but still got his jab in.

What other agency would have escaped this type of criticism? Without the FBI diving into each department we will never be able to say for sure. The GOP knew that even if nothing was there they would still have ammo.

I think you have it backwards. The "jab" was honest while the failure to indict, which is up to Lorreta Lynch and the justice department, was not honest. Comey knew that Lynch wouldn't prosecute and his very detailed statement appears to show his disgust with the result. As per below Comey clearly outlined that crimes were committed.

https://youtu.be/ROI-n8gkCLI

Huh? He wouldn't have said that "no reasonable prosecutor" would pursue charges if what you say is anywhere near being true.

If Comey had "clearly outlined that crimes were committed" he would NOT have said that...come on

Turn off Faux News.

mrussel1

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Kat said:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286539-state-dept-feuds-with-fbi-after-criticism

This is the republican in him coming out in my opinion. He issued an honest opinion regarding how there was nothing to indict but still got his jab in.

What other agency would have escaped this type of criticism? Without the FBI diving into each department we will never be able to say for sure. The GOP knew that even if nothing was there they would still have ammo.

I think you have it backwards. The "jab" was honest while the failure to indict, which is up to Lorreta Lynch and the justice department, was not honest. Comey knew that Lynch wouldn't prosecute and his very detailed statement appears to show his disgust with the result. As per below Comey clearly outlined that crimes were committed.

https://youtu.be/ROI-n8gkCLI

Huh? He wouldn't have said that "no reasonable prosecutor" would pursue charges if what you say is anywhere near being true.

Turn off Faux News.

I know... way to highlight the line that blows apart your argument!

Gern Blansten

derp

Degeneratefk

"People have been charged for far less than this." I heard Comey say that they could not find another case like this where anyone was charged. So I don't know what Rudy is talking about. Plus, unless Rudy was actively involved in the investigation, I don't know how he can say she broke any law. Did he say she was negligent or careless? I believe he said careless.

dignin

She may be a terrible candidate, but she's our terrible candidate.

Still would be an easy decision to make between her and Trump.

Gern Blansten

Obama is just destroying Trump in his speech....it's beautiful

BS44325

Rules are for the little people

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/

mrussel1

BS44325 said:

Rules are for the little people

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/

Intent... you need to remember that word.

gimmesometruth27

did anybody hear that?

that was hillary breaking the internet.

BS44325

Degeneratefk said:

"People have been charged for far less than this." I heard Comey say that they could not find another case like this where anyone was charged. So I don't know what Rudy is talking about. Plus, unless Rudy was actively involved in the investigation, I don't know how he can say she broke any law. Did he say she was negligent or careless? I believe he said careless.

Well isn't that the question "extreme carelessness" vs "gross negligence"? For most people there is no difference between the two.

Degeneratefk

BS44325 said:

Degeneratefk said:

"People have been charged for far less than this." I heard Comey say that they could not find another case like this where anyone was charged. So I don't know what Rudy is talking about. Plus, unless Rudy was actively involved in the investigation, I don't know how he can say she broke any law. Did he say she was negligent or careless? I believe he said careless.

Well isn't that the question "extreme carelessness" vs "gross negligence"? For most people there is no difference between the two.

Actually, for most, theres a huge difference. It's the difference between being charged with a crime and not.

BS44325

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

Rules are for the little people

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/

Intent... you need to remember that word.

No. Intent is not relevant. One can be negligent without intent when it comes to the distribution of classified information. She intentionally shared classified information on an unsecure system. She might not have intentionally wanted this information to be hacked but her negligence exposed this information to foreign agencies. That is the crime. It is her position of power that is protecting her from a prosecution that others such as this sailor would clearly be subjected too. You are covering for her and in doing so are jeopardizing the prosecution of the next lower level agent who commits a similar crime.

BS44325

Degeneratefk said:

BS44325 said:

Degeneratefk said:

"People have been charged for far less than this." I heard Comey say that they could not find another case like this where anyone was charged. So I don't know what Rudy is talking about. Plus, unless Rudy was actively involved in the investigation, I don't know how he can say she broke any law. Did he say she was negligent or careless? I believe he said careless.

Well isn't that the question "extreme carelessness" vs "gross negligence"? For most people there is no difference between the two.

Actually, for most, theres a huge difference. It's the difference between being charged with a crime and not.

It's the semantics we tip toe so that the house of cards doesn't fall.

Dirtie_Frank

Here it is again:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.