What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (6 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
dparker713 said:
It was about information on a potential drone strike that was vaguely referenced in emails that went over State's non-secure server and then was forwarded to Hillary's server.  So yes, it's about how the staff handled information, but whether Hillary had a State email or her private email, the information was compromised before it ever got to her.  So the question that's actually important to this story is whether the vague references were suffficient cover or if any and all communications should have been done over a secure network regardless of their lack of specificity.  
Click to expand...
And why isn't it important that this information ended up on a server outside the government networks where they have no way to monitor it?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
- Hillary has a second home in DC? Really. How much does that one cost, that looks like a really nice house, what does that run in DC?
Click to expand...
That house costs one Denmark pharmaceutical agreement, a water infrastructure deal in Burma and the Brazilian Lauriet University speaking fee. So it was quite a deal. It is not like it is Iranian 100 billion dollar good deal but good none the less. 

Well you wouldn't want her to hang up her 14,000 dollar pantsuits in a dump would you?

 
cobalt_27 said:
Tim you don't respond to those fringe folks either.  Your dishonesty doesn't come from saying positive things, it's deliberately dismissing her obvious shortcomings and burying your head in the sand regarding a very serious criminal investigation of her. 
Click to expand...
1. I don't dismiss her obvious shortcomings- (though what they are to me may be different from what they are to you.) I have written several times that I wish I had a better candidate, one who did not always play on the edges of what is morally and legally acceptable. But from the beginning of this campaign, she is the only candidate who represents the centrist positions and status quo agenda that I personally believe in. Also I think that, despite her flaws, she's a good person. So while I don't dismiss her flaws, I don't find them a compelling reason not to vote for her. And now that we know who her opponent is, it's even less so than ever before.

2. I'm not burying my head in the sand. You and others say it's a serious criminal investigation. I don't know that to be true, and unless she is indicted, I'll never know if it was true or not. I have already written here that I would support her even if she was guilty of criminal activity, because I would still prefer that to Donald Trump. I'm not sure what else you expect me to do about this. No matter how I react to the email stories, they will be posted here whenever one of them breaks- too many people are interested. And so they're impossible to ignore. I wish I could though. 

 
BeaverCleaver said:
Tim thinks it was a computer glitch!
Click to expand...
This is the third time you've repeated this. It's in response to a sarcastic post in another thread, saying that Hillary was innocent. I wrote that I ALMOST agreed with all of it. FTR, the part that I didn't buy into was the computer glitch (I don't even know what the guy was talking about.) 

 
The Commish said:
And why isn't it important that this information ended up on a server outside the government networks where they have no way to monitor it?
Click to expand...
Because the presumption is that any information on an unsecured network is compromised.  So how does it matter which unsecured network it's on?

 
dparker713 said:
Because the presumption is that any information on an unsecured network is compromised.  So how does it matter which unsecured network it's on?
Click to expand...
It's so nuts. BFS thinks the FBI is performing a SAS 70 audit. What's your theory if theories 8-9 don't apply?

Why seize the server in the first place if nothing inappropriate is on it?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
It's so nuts. BFS thinks the FBI is performing a SAS 70 audit. What's your theory if theories 8-9 don't apply?

Why seize the server in the first place if nothing inappropriate is on it?
Click to expand...
You're missing the entire point.  There is a difference between compromised data being sent to her and her compromising data by using the independent server.  

I don't care how much you don't want people to see it, a story published online can't be classified.

 
dparker713 said:
You're missing the entire point.  There is a difference between compromised data being sent to her and her compromising data by using the independent server.  

I don't care how much you don't want people to see it, a story published online can't be classified.
Click to expand...
I understand the "entire" point I assure you, it's not the first time raised here either.

You're also living in a past meme, that excuse about the issue being about published drone stories has been left in the dust.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jill Stein thinks Hillary could be worse than Trump. 

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283037-green-party-candidate-draws-parallels-between-clinton

“Trump says very scary things—deporting immigrants, massive militarism and, you know, ignoring the climate,” Stein said in an interview with Democracy Now, according to a transcript. “Well, Hillary, unfortunately, has a track record for doing all of those things."

“So, the terrible things that we expect from Donald Trump, we’ve actually already seen from Hillary Clinton,” Stein added. “So I’d say, don’t be a victim of this propaganda campaign, which is being waged by people who exercise selective amnesia.”
Click to expand...
She better start sleeping with one eye open. 

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
BFS this might be the released email:

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb29thWeb/O-2015-08641FEB29/DOC_0C05951358/C05951358.pdf

Heavily redacted.

SECRET.

Classified from the date of sending, it can't be declassified for 25 years, which is near the max 30 years.

Do you think this should have been on Hillary's unsecure server?
Click to expand...
I think it should be released fully - you know that.  And if it was OK for Shelby Smith-Wilson to send the email at all then it was OK for Hillary to have it on her server up until the time she informed it was deemed classified.     I also assume that Shelby Smith-Wilson wasn't manually copying classified documents so she could remove the marking under Hillary's direct orders while sitting on the conference call.  

So now we have the worst of the worst of these emails being a discussion of a news article about the drone program (the dreaded SAP) that eventually makes it to Hillary and a summary of a conference call that eventually makes it to Hillary.  Egregious!  
Click to expand...
Weird, this is what the State link now shows:


 


Page Not Found



The page you requested could not be found.


If you used a bookmark and were directed here, please be sure to update it.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Poor Bill, he looks like there is a 50/50 chance he dies in the middle of this eulogy. 

Has it been determined what he is suffering from? 

 
timschochet said:
The 33,000 emails weren't work related (according to Hillary). 
Click to expand...
Boy, it seems like she goofs off at work a lot...is she surfing porn and updating her fantasy line-up while she should be focusing on something like Iran obtaining nuclear weapons or protecting embassies in foreign countries?

 
Boston said:
Boy, it seems like she goofs off at work a lot...is she surfing porn and updating her fantasy line-up while she should be focusing on something like Iran obtaining nuclear weapons or protecting embassies in foreign countries?
Click to expand...
80%+ of them are to Tim giving him links and talking points for the day.

 
So dismayed.  Becomes more apparent every day that both Clintons belong in stocks, but apathy seems to increase in direct proportion.  

 
A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernando’s only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues.
Click to expand...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624

- The Clintons do love them some securities dealers.

- The sale of bonds is really where it's at in the government pay to play world.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
It might be the filtering - June 10, 2016 "Likely General Election Voters" shows H 46.0/ T 34.8/ Other 19.2 for me.

If I put it on 'all respondents' it's - 41.3/30.5/28.3

Check the date, is it showing June 10th?
Click to expand...
It's the weirdest thing.  I pulled it up on iPhone and the split was 44.0, 36.7, 19.2 (filtered to likely general election voters; 73%, 8,235 respondents).

Pulled the same link up off my iPad and got your 46.0, 34.8, 19.2 (same filter).

And yes, June 10 shows on iPad, but doesn't show any date on iPhone.

So bizarre.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713 said:
Because the presumption is that any information on an unsecured network is compromised.  So how does it matter which unsecured network it's on?
Click to expand...
That's a faulty presumption, at best.  Given the reality that there are varying degrees of "secured" from "completely open" to "completely closed".  I'm interested to know if you believe a server sitting on a federal network is any more/less or equal secure as a server sitting behind a Timewarner Cable cable modem/router (or whichever carrier she was using at the time).

Of course it's absolutely possible that a server sitting behind a TWC cable modem CAN be more secure than a federal network, but is it likely?  And if it was, wouldn't it  have been to HRC's benefit to establish that at the very beginning and let it be known to the world?  Given she hasn't this is why I'm going with the assumption that it was about as secure as your home internet connection which would be significantly less secure than the federal networks....even the "unsecured" ones.  

 
The Commish said:
That's a faulty presumption, at best.  Given the reality that there are varying degrees of "secured" from "completely open" to "completely closed".  I'm interested to know if you believe a server sitting on a federal network is any more/less or equal secure as a server sitting behind a Timewarner Cable cable modem/router (or whichever carrier she was using at the time).

Of course it's absolutely possible that a server sitting behind a TWC cable modem CAN be more secure than a federal network, but is it likely?  And if it was, wouldn't it  have been to HRC's benefit to establish that at the very beginning and let it be known to the world?  Given she hasn't this is why I'm going with the assumption that it was about as secure as your home internet connection which would be significantly less secure than the federal networks....even the "unsecured" ones.  
Click to expand...
In a way he is correct, spillage is spillage.  But really the federal network and computers which are attached are far more secure and heavily monitored so the spillage can be managed and cleaned up.  

 
The Commish said:
That's a faulty presumption, at best.  Given the reality that there are varying degrees of "secured" from "completely open" to "completely closed".  I'm interested to know if you believe a server sitting on a federal network is any more/less or equal secure as a server sitting behind a Timewarner Cable cable modem/router (or whichever carrier she was using at the time).

Of course it's absolutely possible that a server sitting behind a TWC cable modem CAN be more secure than a federal network, but is it likely?  And if it was, wouldn't it  have been to HRC's benefit to establish that at the very beginning and let it be known to the world?  Given she hasn't this is why I'm going with the assumption that it was about as secure as your home internet connection which would be significantly less secure than the federal networks....even the "unsecured" ones.  
Click to expand...
I'd think that any unsecured US government server is maybe marginally harder to access but significantly more prone to attack.  And that Hillary's was likely a complete sieve.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
It was supposed to be March, then May, it's anyone's guess now.
Click to expand...
Still have to interview HRC.  It has taken a massively long time, which I am sure means to some here that they have been twiddling their thumbs with absolutely nothing to look at in this benign security review.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cobalt_27 said:
Still have to interview HRC.  It has taken a massively long time, which I am sure means to some here that they have been twiddling their thumbs with absolutely nothing to look at in this benign security review.
Click to expand...
Is it her that's stalling or something else?    If the former, why do you think that would be?  I'd think she'd want to get this over with.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
253K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Back
Top