What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (5 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I am not willing to argue that there is not an e-mail where " highly classified CIA sources were discussed"  and more importantly identified, especially since we already know that this happened with one of the news article discussions  (this is the "CC" example").  There may very well be such a case that is actually damning.  

However, I really find it sad that you guys cannot recognize the style of this article.  It has been used over and over again, and not just by right wing media.  The style basically goes like this:

  • A certain classification code was found to have been used in redacting information in Hillary's emails
  • A brief definition of this code
  • A much longer explanation of what this could mean in the worst case, usually with dismayed and/or appalled expert quotes
  • Never a counter point that this could also be nothing
  • Or more importantly that it was act of marking the item classified that created the danger such as:
  1. just a name on a list might have sent foreign intelligence actors scurrying to identity who someone was, but they weren't actually outed until the code was used to redact the information. 
This is all of course to create an ominous sounding story that will generate attention to attract eyes to ad and click throughs.  The fact that it also leads to many to jump to the conclusion that the mere presence of the markings means that the worst case scenarios apply is just a necessary evil for some and a happy coincidence for others.

Again there may very well be something damning buried in these emails, and stories like this one may very well get it right but the stories themselves should not be very convincing of anything other than what kid of articles the American public go read.  

But there are examples!:  Which once again the worst of the worst is information generated from outside the government (the first and last) and most of the rest are just names having their pictures taken, or being brought to a meeting, or "having done a good job" which were outed to those that may have unredacted copies of the emails when they were redacted and marked.   
Click to expand...
Just ignore BB and look at the documents, and then make up your own mind. Which you often do, and I always respect that. And I have something like above utmost respect for MT like everyone else buuuuttt it was just the other day he claimed a NY Times Editorial Board piece on the email issue was dismissable out of hand because they addressed her as "Mrs. Clinton".... per the standard NYT Manual of Style

By my count they actually link 10, I see 4 that go right to the document. We could probably find the others for the descriptions provided.

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb29thWeb/O-2015-08635HCE11_FEB29/DOC_0C05787634/C05787634.pdf

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb29thWeb/O-2015-08635HCE11_FEB29/DOC_0C05789812/C05789812.pdf

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Jan29thWeb/O-2015-08640HCE10/DOC_0C05795231/C05795231.pdf

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/11613

The claim that the (b)(3) code appears does indeed appear to be true and they do say (just glancing) "CIA PERS/ORG".

That's a big potential career ending problem for most people working in diplomatic and military circles. It may not result in indictment (Valerie Plame's name being revealed under yes different circumstances might be a counter-example) but it's a big problem.

I think the better argument here if you look at the examples is some (except one, there could be others) appear to have been emailed first to Hillary and their landing or originating on gov accounts in the first place is no better than their landing on Hillary's (well maybe better IMO but equally unauthorized).

And there is again the dual email (HROD17) appearing. and we have marked SBU again which is prohibited as discussed before, but those are side points.

Personally I have zero doubt that foreign intelligence was reading Hillary's emails in real time. I don't even know if that required "hacking" given what has been the state of signals intelligence for some time now.

But like I said, look at the documents linked to make your own determination, you don't have to listen to NYT or BB or anyone.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I am not willing to argue that there is not an e-mail where " highly classified CIA sources were discussed"  and more importantly identified, especially since we already know that this happened with one of the news article discussions  (this is the "CC" example").  There may very well be such a case that is actually damning.  

However, I really find it sad that you guys cannot recognize the style of this article.  It has been used over and over again, and not just by right wing media.  The style basically goes like this:

  • A certain classification code was found to have been used in redacting information in Hillary's emails
  • A brief definition of this code
  • A much longer explanation of what this could mean in the worst case, usually with dismayed and/or appalled expert quotes
  • Never a counter point that this could also be nothing
  • Or more importantly that it was act of marking the item classified that created the danger such as:
  1. just a name on a list might have sent foreign intelligence actors scurrying to identity who someone was, but they weren't actually outed until the code was used to redact the information. 
This is all of course to create an ominous sounding story that will generate attention to attract eyes to ad and click throughs.  The fact that it also leads to many to jump to the conclusion that the mere presence of the markings means that the worst case scenarios apply is just a necessary evil for some and a happy coincidence for others.

Again there may very well be something damning buried in these emails, and stories like this one may very well get it right but the stories themselves should not be very convincing of anything other than what kid of articles the American public go read.  

But there are examples!:  Which once again the worst of the worst is information generated from outside the government (the first and last) and most of the rest are just names having their pictures taken, or being brought to a meeting, or "having done a good job" which were outed to those that may have unredacted copies of the emails when they were redacted and marked.   
Click to expand...
What we know is that all of Hillary's lies have been deconstructed, and proven to be just that: lies.  She has no credibility on the issue, the intent to circumvent the approved system was established, as was the fact that there were multiple warnings, hacking attempts (possibly successful) and an internal effort to tamp down those who objected to the risks.  It has been reported elsewhere, including the New York Times that Hillary herself revealed at least one source.  Consider this article as one of many establishing background for the damage possible by storing data in that highly unsecured system (including multiple cloud backups and at least one USB stick).  This is all just more detail for a case that's already been made, and now is beginning to look like it can't be made to look otherwise.  Last tumbler is evidence of successful hacking, which it appears likely exists.  At no stage has this ever broken in a way that makes what happened look less damning, and the Admin's obstruction and Hillary's office's refusal to cooperate all suggest this was a criminal endeavor born of arrogance and negligence, made even worse by the cover-up.

 
timschochet said:
I posted this in the wrong thread but I will post it here. 

As several people have noted all over the Internet, it is shameful for Donald Trump, or those of his supporters who agree with him on his bigoted proposal to ban all Muslims from coming into this country, to express their sympathy at the death of Muhammad Ali. It is hypocritical to the highest degree. 
Click to expand...
I'll say it - I grew up on the wrong side when it come to Muhammad Ali.  I could not escape from "racism in my bones".   It is one of the reasons why I disagree with all the extra baggage added to the term "racists" which makes it impossible to get beyond "racism".   You have mentioned a loved one many times that is homophobic but at the same time except for that characteristic one of the people you most admire.  You have never been able to conceive how it is possible, but that is no different than how I feel for some racists (who probably were also homophobic but they died before I could know).  So back to Ali, his fight against Parkinson was the only one of his fights where I was on the correct side, something that I am both ashamed of and fearful that I can never completely overcome.  

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
Hillary came out with some really nice comments about Ali and the close bond she felt with him.  I'd never heard this story before but apparently her mother always used to tell her you can't spell Hillary without an ali.
Click to expand...
You can't spell Hillary without l i a r

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Henry Ford said:
It does appear that the reply email to Sullivan was also sent from a different address than the original email from Sullivan was sent to.  That's weird, too.
Click to expand...
That is definitely odd. HDR22 and HROD17. Both "H" (whoever that is).
Click to expand...
Here you go.
Click to expand...


But the Clinton campaign says there is a simple explanation for this apparent discrepancy: The emails published by the Times were printed out in 2014 after Clinton had left the State Department and after she had changed her email address, so the printed copies of emails she sent while in office display her new address (hrod17@clintonemail.com), even though they were originally sent under her old address (hdr22@clintonemail.com). We agree that this is possible.
Click to expand...


- This is an example of where providing the original metadata in the way of the original electronic files would resolve this. Naturally as we know Hillary destroyed all of the original metadata so this is impossible to prove. Now why would she do a thing like that?

- Also, assuming it's true, ie Conte's statement that it is “'technically possible'”, why did she change her email address, BFS, any ideas?

“The best way to obtain all of the facts about these emails would be for a third party forensic examiner to conduct an examination of Ms. Clinton’s mail server and desktop system,” said Jonathan Zdziarski, forensics expert and author of the book “iPhone Forensics: Recovering Evidence, Personal Data, and Corporate Assets.” “That could easily determine what email addresses existed at approximately what dates, possibly even when they were changed, as well as retrieve the original email envelopes and content.”
Click to expand...
- Again - Hillary made this physically impossible - why?

What we do know, however, is that the emails posted by the Times do not support the RNC’s claim that Clinton had “multiple secret email addresses” as secretary of state, and there is no evidence to contradict Clinton’s claim that she created hrod17@clintonemail.com after she left office.
Click to expand...
- Does it say when she created it? I don't notice it. Why did she change the name of HDR22 if this is true, it seems like a bigger problem than having the dual addresses. Hillary cut off all her personal contacts who knew her through email, that would be a really weird and sudden thing to do.

As for multiple addresses, all of these have been registered:

  • hdr18@clintonemail.com

    [*]hdr19@clintonemail.com

    [*]hdr20@clintonemail.com

    [*]hdr21@clintonemail.com

    [*]hdr22@clintonemail.com

    [*]h@clintonemail.com

    [*]h.clinton@clintonemail.com

    [*]hillary@clintonemail.com

    [*]contact@clintonemail.com

    [*]mau_suit@clintonemail.com
    Click to expand...
https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-22-in-Hillary-Clintons-private-email-account-hdr22-clintonemail-com-mean

- HROD17 would certainly seem to fall in sequence.

- And there's also the HDR15@att email she was using at least into the fall of 2009.

- I'm guessing there's an HDR16/HROD16 in there somewhere.

That's a good article on hacking by the way.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes said:
You can't spell Hillary without l i a r
Click to expand...
Yes, her anagram is H. Liarly.  

She is really too eager to lie.  I would hate to have someone such as her as President.  Granted, she is more intelligent than Trump, but she only uses it for selfish ends.  Electing Trump would be better in the long run because it would force the nation to take a long look in the mirror and question how we allowed this.

 
And the idea of our SOS going around to the emailing world as "H" or "H2" is still hilarious. "Who is this mystery woman?" "Oh why she represents the United States of America in all its foreign policy course..." Same woman's emails were going to spam in her own department. Now that sounds like something BB would make up, but no it's true.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
By my count they actually link 10, I see 4 that go right to the document. We could probably find the others for the descriptions provided.

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb29thWeb/O-2015-08635HCE11_FEB29/DOC_0C05787634/C05787634.pdf

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb29thWeb/O-2015-08635HCE11_FEB29/DOC_0C05789812/C05789812.pdf

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Jan29thWeb/O-2015-08640HCE10/DOC_0C05795231/C05795231.pdf

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/11613

The claim that the (b)(3) code appears does indeed appear to be true and they do say (just glancing) "CIA PERS/ORG".

:

But like I said, look at the documents linked to make your own determination, you don't have to listen to NYT or BB or anyone.
Click to expand...
How can one possibly read my post that you quoted and then turn around and tell me that I need to look at the actual emails?

The first example your provide has the redacted information sourced by information that was sent to the government from outside the government.  No one moved classified information from the government to the private.  (As was mentioned in my post you replied.)  

The second example has been discussed repeatedly.  All we know is that someone had their photo taken with Hillary. 

The third example and fourth  is suppose to tell me what?  

My point was not whether or not the code existed, but whether you can just automatically "fill in the blanks" with the worst case scenario offered in these articles when you see the code.  Based on examples provided in the where one can relatively easily know what was likely there the answer is you cannot.  Can we jump to the conclusion that all cases will be just as innocent - of course not.  We shouldn't be "filling in the blanks" and "jumping to conclusions" to begin with. 

 
The "my address was different when I printed them" explanation is garbage.  I do email server configuration for a living, so I'm pretty sure I'm right about this.

That said, there is a perfectly good explanation for the different email addresses issue. On my phone, so can't get into detail, but suffice to say, the fact that inbound and outbound addresses are different isn't indicative of anything other than that she had multiple addresses.

 
bueno said:
TF, I think you are wrong. The reason why so many people voted for Trump is the problem. That reason simply doesn't go away if and when Trump is defeated. In fact, I suspect 4 years of Hillary will only make those who voted for Trump more angry, more anti-government and more willing to support a candidate like Trump next time aorund. Everyone needs to focus on the disease instead of the symptom here.
Click to expand...
When the symptom is cardiac arrest, you kinda need to deal with that first before performing the quadruple bypass.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
What we do know, however, is that the emails posted by the Times do not support the RNC’s claim that Clinton had “multiple secret email addresses” as secretary of state, and there is no evidence to contradict Clinton’s claim that she created hrod17@clintonemail.com after she left office.
Click to expand...
- Does it say when she created it? I don't notice it. Why did she change the name of HDR22 if this is true, it seems like a bigger problem than having the dual addresses. Hillary cut off all her personal contacts who knew her through email, that would be a really weird and sudden thing to do.
Click to expand...
Yes it does!  And you of all people should instinctively know anyway.  Search for Gawker on the page.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
The first example your provide has the redacted information sourced by information that was sent to the government from outside the government.  No one moved classified information from the government to the private.  (As was mentioned in my post you replied.)  

The second example has been discussed repeatedly.  All we know is that someone had their photo taken with Hillary. 

The third example and fourth  is suppose to tell me what?  

My point was not whether or not the code existed, but whether you can just automatically "fill in the blanks" with the worst case scenario offered in these articles when you see the code.  Based on examples provided in the where one can relatively easily know what was likely there the answer is you cannot.  Can we jump to the conclusion that all cases will be just as innocent - of course not.  We shouldn't be "filling in the blanks" and "jumping to conclusions" to begin with. 
Click to expand...
1. - Agree, but it's the nature of the information which controls, that's the sole test. However as I said here the sin originated with the ex-ambassador.

2. - I can see the reference to the photo but that does not mean it was a public photo. I'm sure Valerie Plame had her photo taken with SOS's too.

3. - An actual secret email from CIA personnel which was classified/secret when sent and it's pretty well secret because it was given a classification life of 25 years.

4. - Same as no. 3.

I agree on your final point, it's speculation and we're waiting on the FBI/DOJ on this stuff. However as always I think the facts are worth reporting.

 
Rich Conway said:
The "my address was different when I printed them" explanation is garbage.  I do email server configuration for a living, so I'm pretty sure I'm right about this.

That said, there is a perfectly good explanation for the different email addresses issue. On my phone, so can't get into detail, but suffice to say, the fact that inbound and outbound addresses are different isn't indicative of anything other than that she had multiple addresses.
Click to expand...
Many of those that were asked by fact checker said the same thing - at first.  

 
dparker713 said:
When the symptom is cardiac arrest, you kinda need to deal with that first before performing the quadruple bypass.
Click to expand...
"I have good news, and I have bad news. The good news is that your husband's bypass went perfectly.  The bad news is that he had been dead for 3.5 hours when we were done."

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
1. - Agree, but it's the nature of the information which controls, that's the sole test. However as I said here the sin originated with the ex-ambassador.
Click to expand...
There maybe something buried in here that supersedes the executive order posted so many times that I know the number (13256) and the one prior, but absent that you are wrong!

ETA:  I won't pretend I read every word of the Central Intelligence Agency Act but as best my skimming can do is find references to protecting identities is in section 6 (which creates the responsibilities to create such regulations and also exempts from other "sunshine laws" - my words)  and section 23 at the end (which is largely about HR benefits issues  - again my words).  Absent additional evidence to the contrary I don't think this changes the "rules" of 13256,

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Yes it does!  And you of all people should instinctively know anyway.  Search for Gawker on the page.
Click to expand...


In March 2013, a month after she left the Department, Gawker published the email address she used while Secretary, and so she had to change the address on her account.
Click to expand...


- Thanks, I didn't see it in the article.

That is actually Hillary's campaign's statement, which I find somewhat less believable but it does make sense.

And that answers the 'why', she had a legitimate fear she could be flooded with unwanted spam (ironic) but also that she had been hacked.

But I would like to get back to FCheck's point, they address the report from the Daily Caller, but they really do not represent it properly.

FC:

The RNC noted that IT expert Bruce Webster told the Daily Caller that Clinton’s explanation “made no sense.” But the conservative website also quoted Webster as saying it is possible with servers hosted by Microsoft Exchange — which, as it turns out, is the server that we used for our test.
Click to expand...
DC:

Bruce Webster, an information technology expert and partner at Ironwood Experts, says that the argument put forth by the Clinton camp “makes no sense.”

“In a typical email exchange/server, each address — not account name — is its own entity,” Webster told The Daily Caller.

“If I set up a new email address for myself,” Webster explained, “that will not magically go back and change all my old emails to that new address. They will all still be stored in an account with my original email address.”

Webster said that while servers hosted by Microsoft Exchange do let users move email from one account to another, “that is typically done en masse.” He also said that even if Clinton’s private email server was configured in a similar manner, it doesn’t explain why Clinton’s email printouts show two different addresses.
Click to expand...


- Note the way I read this it means that it would require someone migrating all of an account's emails (here 60K+) into the new account, aside from the fact there is no indication this was done in FC's report or Hillary's statement, if so why would someone do that?

- Again this is the sort of technical issue which would be easily resolvable if Hillary had left her metadata intact of destroying all of it. Which again is one of the main reasons someone would destroy all metadata in teh first place.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
There maybe something buried in here that supersedes the executive order posted so many times that I know the number (13256) and the one prior, but absent that you are wrong!
Click to expand...
The EO would control Cheryl Mills' behavior, not the ex-ambassador's. At that point when a government employee improperly receives something classified they should contact an SSO. I realize that can be a tad burdensome and sometimes difficult like here where there is a name or sentence buried in a dense memo, so I was trying to give you a point there. But the EO puts the onus on Mills and then Hillary and Abedin after that fwiw.

I think in general the CIA would have been pretty pssd off to know Kmiec was throwing one of their agents' name around unsecure.

 
BFS on the HROD emails per FC the sole point of reference for the claim that HROD17 was created in March 2013 is Hillary herself, ie she just says that. I'm not saying it's wrong but it could also be self-serving, so what is the objective evidence for that?

FC points to two experts who say yeah it's plausible and they also point to another who says nah extremely unlikely and nonsensical.

We know that HDR18-22 were created.

The speculative question then becomes when and how hdr1-hdr17 were used, since those don't exist anymore.
Click to expand...
We know Hillary had hr15@att.blackberry.net in the Senate.

Why would it not make sense for her to progress from *15 to *16 to HROD17 and etc. to HDR22? Now what the HDR18-21 accounts were for we don't know, but it seems to me HROD17 would land between HDR22 and HR15, not come after HDR22.

-eta - again aside from the destruction of the metadata, if Hillary had coordinated with State IT we could also verify it through them, but again she very much did not do that.

(- eta - fyi I'm running out to try a new bakery and get some more cafe, talk at ya later, didn't mean to miss your prior post.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Hillary Clinton's really good day: 

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/opinion/hillarys-really-good-day.html?ref=opinion&referer=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Click to expand...
The press will pretty much obliterate Trump from now until election day. He will do no right (and he likely won't in my eyes). And I do think Hillary's speech was good but the media treatment of Trump pre-clinching and post will be like the difference in Seinfeld's girlfriend who looked good/bad in light/shade.

 
Henry Ford said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
There maybe something buried in here that supersedes the executive order posted so many times that I know the number (13256) and the one prior, but absent that you are wrong!
Click to expand...
I'm starting to get very confused about what you think can and cannot be classified.
Click to expand...
In general-

Sec. 1.4.  Classification Categories.  Information shall not be considered for classification unless its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the national security in accordance with section 1.2 of this order, and it pertains to one or more of the following:(a)  military plans, weapons systems, or operations;(b)  foreign government information;(c)  intelligence activities (including covert action), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;(d)  foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;(e)  scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security;(f)  United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;(g)  vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or protection services relating to the national security; or(h)  the development, production, or use of weapons of mass destruction.
 

But Saints said that the above was the "sole test".  He is wrong.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The press will pretty much obliterate Trump from now until election day. He will do no right (and he likely won't in my eyes). And I do think Hillary's speech was good but the media treatment of Trump pre-clinching and post will be like the difference in Seinfeld's girlfriend who looked good/bad in light/shade.
Click to expand...
There will no doubt be bad days for Hillary  to come. And if the last jobs report was not a blip but a forerunner of bad economic news coming this summer, Donald Trump will have a decent chance to win no matter how much a fool he makes of himself between now and November. 

 
timschochet said:
There will no doubt be bad days for Hillary  to come. And if the last jobs report was not a blip but a forerunner of bad economic news coming this summer, Donald Trump will have a decent chance to win no matter how much a fool he makes of himself between now and November. 
Click to expand...
I really don't think mediocre job growth will do it for Donald.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The EO would control Cheryl Mills' behavior, not the ex-ambassador's. At that point when a government employee improperly receives something classified they should contact an SSO. I realize that can be a tad burdensome and sometimes difficult like here where there is a name or sentence buried in a dense memo, so I was trying to give you a point there. But the EO puts the onus on Mills and then Hillary and Abedin after that fwiw.

I think in general the CIA would have been pretty pssd off to know Kmiec was throwing one of their agents' name around unsecure.
Click to expand...
Maybe we can argue that the email was " (2)  the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;" and maybe we can say the specific information of the name was " (2)  the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;" but the email is still not classified until "the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage."  I wonder who that would be at State?

Of course I'm addressing  "classified" here per the executive order.  Maybe the CIA authorization act drumpfs this in some way (I got bored reading how agents would get paid time off traveling to and from their posts).  And as I pointed out yesterday maybe some ambitious prosecutor will notice that the espionage act doesn't actually say "classified information" in those "mishandling classified information" provisions.  And of course in your own personal opinion maybe this is enough for your own judgment that even if this was not technically classified, it should have been.  But it is pretty innocent to me.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Maybe we can argue that the email was " (2)  the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;" and maybe we can say the specific information of the name was " (2)  the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;" but the email is still not classified until "the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage."  I wonder who that would be at State?

Of course I'm addressing  "classified" here per the executive order.  Maybe the CIA authorization act drumpfs this in some way (I got bored reading how agents would get paid time off traveling to and from their posts).  And as I pointed out yesterday maybe some ambitious prosecutor will notice that the espionage act doesn't actually say "classified information" in those "mishandling classified information" provisions.  And of course in your own personal opinion maybe this is enough for your own judgment that even if this was not technically classified, it should have been.  But it is pretty innocent to me.
Click to expand...
The word "maybe" is used in that post quite often.

 
As for multiple addresses, all of these have been registered:

Quote
hdr18@clintonemail.com
hdr19@clintonemail.com
hdr20@clintonemail.com
hdr21@clintonemail.com
hdr22@clintonemail.com
h@clintonemail.com
h.clinton@clintonemail.com
hillary@clintonemail.com
contact@clintonemail.com
mau_suit@clintonemail.com
Click to expand...
I think "mau" is Arabic for "pant".

 
BeaverCleaver said:
The word "maybe" is used in that post quite often.
Click to expand...
I know for many that being wrong, but certain is preferable to uncertainty.  I hope you are not one of those,  I hope "I don't know" is sign of strength and not weakness in your mind.  When it comes to these redacted emails "I just don't know" is generally the case.  Would be nice to have some certainty one way or another, but it can't exist right now. 

 
Joe Summer said:
I think "mau" is Arabic for "pant".
Click to expand...
Actually it's possibly short for the admin suite.

Which if true would be significant because while even if Hillary was not hacked if the admin rights are accessed then there would be no need to 'hack' Hillary because that person would just have rights.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ham said:
What we know is that all of Hillary's lies have been deconstructed, and proven to be just that: lies.  She has no credibility on the issue, the intent to circumvent the approved system was established, as was the fact that there were multiple warnings, hacking attempts (possibly successful) and an internal effort to tamp down those who objected to the risks.  It has been reported elsewhere, including the New York Times that Hillary herself revealed at least one source.  Consider this article as one of many establishing background for the damage possible by storing data in that highly unsecured system (including multiple cloud backups and at least one USB stick).  This is all just more detail for a case that's already been made, and now is beginning to look like it can't be made to look otherwise.  Last tumbler is evidence of successful hacking, which it appears likely exists.  At no stage has this ever broken in a way that makes what happened look less damning, and the Admin's obstruction and Hillary's office's refusal to cooperate all suggest this was a criminal endeavor born of arrogance and negligence, made even worse by the cover-up.
Click to expand...
Another  :goodposting:

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
2. - I can see the reference to the photo but that does not mean it was a public photo. I'm sure Valerie Plame had her photo taken with SOS's too.
Click to expand...
The question is not whether or not the photo was public, but whether or not the redacted block contains anything more than a name, or in the inverse more than a title.  If it says "photo taken with Valerie Plame" it may raise eyebrows at the Kremlin as to "who is Valerie Plame"  but it does not "out" Valerie Plame as a secret, highly classified agent even if it being read in real time.  Similarly if it said "photo taken with <some title>" it doesn't say who held that position.   Of course it could also say "photo taken with Valerie Plame <highly classified agent>" which would create some risk for Valerie Plame if the information was intercepted.   Even in the worst case I can't imagine anyone trying to prosecute this.  As far as personal opinion it is exactly the kind of relatively innocent "spillage"  (thank's jon) which long I stated showed why using a private account was a bad idea.  Just not a "disqualifying" bad idea like others conclude.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Not what it says!  And again, you of all people should know where Gawker got the address.  (And yes I realize that there is the claim of hacking Hillary's server all the way back in that March 2013 article).
Click to expand...
You clipped my quote, I said she had a legitimate fear of being spammed and being hacked. I didn't offer that as proof she had been hacked.

eta - I think the IG report actually has something on this as well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I know for many that being wrong, but certain is preferable to uncertainty.  I hope you are not one of those,  I hope "I don't know" is sign of strength and not weakness in your mind.  When it comes to these redacted emails "I just don't know" is generally the case.  Would be nice to have some certainty one way or another, but it can't exist right now. 
Click to expand...
More people need to accept this idea and learn to live it in a meaningful way both here and irl.  One reason I don' t engage certain relatives in serious conversation at family get togethers is their obstinant belief that you either know you're right or you are just flat out wrong.  Saying idk is akin to being wrong in their eyes.  Too much hassle for them to discuss issues so they d rather argue their rightness instead.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Not what it says!  And again, you of all people should know where Gawker got the address.  (And yes I realize that there is the claim of hacking Hillary's server all the way back in that March 2013 article).
Click to expand...
The interesting thing about the attempts into hacking into her severs is that before it had been claimed the severs showed no signs.  Whether hacking was successful or not, the logs setup were not very good as they apparently were not capturing hacking attempts.  

 
jon_mx said:
The interesting thing about the attempts into hacking into her severs is that before it had been claimed the severs showed no signs.  Whether hacking was successful or not, the logs setup were not very good as they apparently were not capturing hacking attempts.  
Click to expand...
I agree and the most important aspect is that her server had been found. It's 100% guaranteed that foreign intelligence agencies knew of it. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
jon_mx said:
The interesting thing about the attempts into hacking into her severs is that before it had been claimed the severs showed no signs.  Whether hacking was successful or not, the logs setup were not very good as they apparently were not capturing hacking attempts.  
Click to expand...
I agree and the most important aspect is that her server had been found. It's 100% guaranteed that foreign intelligence agencies knew of it. 
Click to expand...
addressed hundreds of pages ago :shrug:  

And it's a full stop....don't need to go any further than this point o illustrate the lack of judgment and poor decision making

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I agree and the most important aspect is that her server had been found. It's 100% guaranteed that foreign intelligence agencies knew of it. 
Click to expand...
Of course...

“I think that foreign intelligence services, the good ones, have everything on any unclassified network that the government uses, whether that’s a private server or a public one,” Morell said. “They’re that good.”

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Of course...

“I think that foreign intelligence services, the good ones, have everything on any unclassified network that the government uses, whether that’s a private server or a public one,” Morell said. “They’re that good.”
Click to expand...
Great, agreed, John Kerry said as much himself, this is something the Hillary campaign and Hillary herself constantly and consistently lie about.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Of course...

“I think that foreign intelligence services, the good ones, have everything on any unclassified network that the government uses, whether that’s a private server or a public one,” Morell said. “They’re that good.”
Click to expand...
Great, agreed, John Kerry said as much himself, this is something the Hillary campaign and Hillary herself constantly and consistently lie about.
Click to expand...
What lie?  More importantly do you think that foreign intelligence services would have had a need to hack Hillary's server to have all 60,000+ emails?  I doubt it!  

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
What lie?  More importantly do you think that foreign intelligence services would have had a need to hack Hillary's server to have all 60,000+ emails?  I doubt it!  
Click to expand...
BFS, really. The one where they tell people foreign intelligence services (FIS) don't or didn't have her emails or read them.

Whether they got it by hacking, simply logging in as her or her admin or most likely by means of signals eavesdropping, they certainly would have read in time or copied some, most or all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So to summarize to this point we are looking at intellectually, ethically, and temperamentally unfit vs intellectually and ethically unfit. Awesome.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
1K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
193K
Pip's Invitation
Pip's Invitation
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
1K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Top