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 (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
:pickle:

Reuters Top News ‏@Reuters 4h4 hours ago

Clinton regains double-digit lead over Trump: Reuters/Ipsos poll

http://reut.rs/292URT9

"Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton regained a double-digit lead over Republican rival Donald Trump this week, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday.

The June 20-24 poll showed that 46.6 percent of likely American voters supported Clinton while 33.3 percent supported Trump. Another 20.1 percent said they would support neither candidate.

Trump had enjoyed a brief boost in support following the June 12 mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, as he doubled down on his pledge to ban Muslims from entering the country, cutting Clinton's lead to nine points.

But Trump's rise in popularity appeared to be only temporary, unlike his lasting surge among the Republican field last year after the attacks in Paris and in San Bernardino, California.

Clinton's 13.3 percentage point lead is about the same as she had before the Orlando attack."
 
Mr. Ham said:
She learned from 2008, got more shameless (installed co-campaign chair at DNC, bolder in courting big money -- [speechescough] -- and funneling pay-to-play deals through the Foundation.). She turned it up to 11 this time, on the corruptionometer.  Everyone knew it was "her turn" including everyone willing to pay for influence.
Click to expand...
The actual difference between 2008 and 2016 - Bernie is no Obama.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
The Commish said:
I hate the no nested quotes thing....I had to go back a ways to figure out what was said originally.  After reading, I tend to agree with BFS here.  The reason they decided to reduce their security on State computers was so they could get emails from Hillary.  So, now, we know that Hillary had her own server that was significantly lacking in security (to the point where State computers thought it was phishing type emails) and in order for State computers to communicate with it in any reliable manner they decided to reduce the State computer security.  I have no idea how many PCs we are talking about but we are talking about computers on a network that's been hacked (the network and computers on it...perhaps not these specific computers though) reducing their security below a level that's already been shown to be "hackable".  That seems like a good idea and a wonderful display of judgment.  And for what exactly?
Click to expand...
Enterprise spam filters don't really tell us anything about the security level of the sending server.  For example I'd guess that the servers that the servers used to collect ransomware bitcoins are rather secure.  And while the very real concern that a user could install such malware that does an end around of the security on their PC and/or network based on an otherwise blocked email, turning off the spam filter does not otherwise reduce any other security settings on any individual PC or on the network.     

And while the risk is real, turning these filters off while troubleshooting why a vendors emails are not making it to corporate America happens all the time, so doing the same for communication from the Secretary of State to the State department doesn't seem any different.
Click to expand...
The filters themselves don't, but the lack of a handshake between them can.  Should also be noted that disabling a spam filter probably isn't a huge deal on an individual computer, the server that processes those emails out to the client is for sure less secure.  It no longer has it's mechanism in place to prevent the passing of emails.  At least that's how it works on exchange....not sure if that's what they use or not.  So while it may not "reduce other security settings on the individual PC or on the network" it certainly reduces the security on the servers processing the emails making it significantly easier to get onto the network and pass out the opportunity for a click.  Lazy phishing looks for any opportunity to get that click from the user and relies on dumb users to click.  Hacking into a system looks for a single access point so they can use it as a "base" to explore to plan where they're going to go next, which is where the server security (of the OS and server applications) comes into play.  Servers have much different software on them than a PC does.  They need to because they are typically consumers and communicators of data and there's much more information about the overall environment on a server than a PC.

And I'm not sure this is true, but I can't speak for all of corporate America.  It's a last resort for us.  For the simple fact that we know we can't allow an unprotected communication.  So there's no point in turning it off because we know it can't work that way while "live".  We don't turn ours off.  We have to figure it out.  We JUST had to do something like this with secure file transfers a couple weeks ago actually.  That said, even if you were 100% correct, "other people do it too" really isn't a compelling reason to overlook something like this IMO.  I can sorta understand it in corporate America where there is an industry standard based on the data being communicated, but our government doesn't have an "industry" to compare itself to.  It is a unique beast all of it's own with data not like anything corporate America deals with.  They should have their own rules and standards elevated to a point where they seem absurd to you and me IMO.  And to be clear, there are portions of our government that do.  The NSA and CIA have these standards.  On the military side the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and his staff have this standard.  So it exists.

 
Hillary:  "Let's get separate address or device but I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible"

So from Day 1 the entire motivation for Hillary was all about keeping her emails private.   Every statement team Hillary has put out on these emails has been a boldface lie.   Really can't see how anyone can support either of these crooks running.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
Hillary:  "Let's get separate address or device but I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible"

So from Day 1 the entire motivation for Hillary was all about keeping her emails private.   Every statement team Hillary has put out on these emails has been a boldface lie.   Really can't see how anyone can support either of these crooks running.  
Click to expand...
As much as you may detest both, one of them is going to win.  

 
squistion said:
:pickle:

Reuters Top News ‏@Reuters 4h4 hours ago

Clinton regains double-digit lead over Trump: Reuters/Ipsos poll

http://reut.rs/292URT9

"Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton regained a double-digit lead over Republican rival Donald Trump this week, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday.

The June 20-24 poll showed that 46.6 percent of likely American voters supported Clinton while 33.3 percent supported Trump. Another 20.1 percent said they would support neither candidate.

Trump had enjoyed a brief boost in support following the June 12 mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, as he doubled down on his pledge to ban Muslims from entering the country, cutting Clinton's lead to nine points.

But Trump's rise in popularity appeared to be only temporary, unlike his lasting surge among the Republican field last year after the attacks in Paris and in San Bernardino, California.

Clinton's 13.3 percentage point lead is about the same as she had before the Orlando attack."
Click to expand...
Dukakis is always the comp here for what could go wrong, but I don't see where it applies. Trump is down >-10, his unfavorables are in the 60-70 range, everyone knows him. He also has poor fundamentals. Say he has a good stretch where he says the right things, acts the right way, and just say his last speech was a "good" speech, as soon as he gets off the cue cards he has to answer extemporaneously for the things he has said on script. And he can't do it. The book is that he is very good off script, and maybe that is so in an entertaining and bomb throwing sort of way, but if he is drilled on anything substantive he crumbles and those are the rules of the GE as opposed to the primaries. I don't think he can fight his way out of this data-wise or on a personal level. Can't fix the field and can't fix the candidate. And he's the perfect - and maybe only - fit for Hillary in that each and every one of her real flaws are negated by him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Yeah, sorry, let's look at a technical expert's opinion:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160623/09170034795/emails-show-hillary-clintons-email-server-was-massive-security-headache-set-up-to-route-around-foia-requests.shtml
Click to expand...
Not one sentence in that article supports your assertions.  It supports mine.   Like I said all of the cutting and pasting  won't change a thing!  So for once please don't!
 

ETA:  And the technical expert wasn't very technical.
Click to expand...


Bottomfeeder Sports said:
No amount of cutting and pasting is going to make your interpretation correct.   The Secretary of States e-mails (among others) were being caught by the spam filters,  That is the "delivery problem" with Hillary's secret server that no one at State, especially in IT was aware of  that is being discussed by State IT.  Turning off these spam filters meant that State was vulnerable to having its employee receive phishing emails.  That created the potential that someone would click on something that would infect the network.  
Click to expand...
I'm going to let Commish and Jon handle the technical aspects. I take it you're on a layman level like me, I looked to a technical site to explain the situation. This is a little like looking at intelligence and military opinions on Hillary's mishandling of classified information, if you think there is some technical site or author out there defending Hillary's behavior please point me to it.

However, I'm not entirely sure where you and I are disagreeing anyway?

Hillary's system was treated as spam. I said the State system was protecting itself against here. That's what spam filtering is, partly. It's not just unwanted, unrecognized crap, it's possibly also dangerous unrecognizable crap.

Then my second point was that State IT disabled their own security features because of fears that Hillary's email server was hacked. Maybe 'fear of' it having been hacked is a better description. However the facts bear this out.

You might think I am blaming State IT in some way for its reaction. I'm not. I don't want anyone to think that. Those poor guys show up and do their job only in this instance with the incredible political pressure (faced with either doing this f'd up thing or being a whistleblower on the SOS and likely next POTUS, how's that sound for a Monday?). Ultimately, as TechDirt points out, "to make Clinton's private, insecure email server connect with the State Department's, it had to -- at least temporarily -- lower itself to Clinton's security level." That's entirely on Hillary's reckless original decision making to have her own server. So not only was her server insecure but then her decision made State's system less secure ultimately. Not to mention it failed in two very basic purposes of any email system: 1. to actually you know be TURNED ON and 2. when working to deliver emails to State, or you know, actually WORK.

However, this brings to light one more point - server administration:

- follow up question for you - WHY is a member of a private investment firm, here Justin Cooper of Teneo, in administrative control of the server of the Secretary of State for the United States?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
Hillary:  "Let's get separate address or device but I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible"

So from Day 1 the entire motivation for Hillary was all about keeping her emails private.   Every statement team Hillary has put out on these emails has been a boldface lie.   Really can't see how anyone can support either of these crooks running.  
Click to expand...
How does Hillary mixing in work email with her personal email on one server in one account achieve the goal of keeping her private emails private?  I have no doubts that someone under the scrutiny that Hillary has been under for decades would be motivated to keep her private stuff private, but unless you believe that Hillary naively believed that somehow she could keep it all private or that the server gave her control she (and every other government employees) wouldn't already have to use her discretion in deciding which was which this would not seem to be a motivation of mixing them all together.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
How does Hillary mixing in work email with her personal email on one server in one account achieve the goal of keeping her private emails private?  I have no doubts that someone under the scrutiny that Hillary has been under for decades would be motivated to keep her private stuff private, but unless you believe that Hillary naively believed that somehow she could keep it all private or that the server gave her control she (and every other government employees) wouldn't already have to use her discretion in deciding which was which this would not seem to be a motivation of mixing them all together.
Click to expand...
BFS you just answered your own question.

Btw Hillary still believes she voluntarily handed this information over, she has never acknowledged that any of this is public records. She still believes it is all  private because it's on a private server. She thinks that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
How does Hillary mixing in work email with her personal email on one server in one account achieve the goal of keeping her private emails private?  I have no doubts that someone under the scrutiny that Hillary has been under for decades would be motivated to keep her private stuff private, but unless you believe that Hillary naively believed that somehow she could keep it all private or that the server gave her control she (and every other government employees) wouldn't already have to use her discretion in deciding which was which this would not seem to be a motivation of mixing them all together.
Click to expand...
Because she would be free to mix the personal, the private, and the criminal all in one place, then have full control to delete the evidence later. Like she did. 

 
Philo said:
Because she would be free to mix the personal, the private, and the criminal all in one place, then have full control to delete the evidence later. Like she did. 
Click to expand...
How would having separate work and personal e-mails change that? Every e-mail she sent to other gov't accounts is archived on gov't systems already and if she really wanted to hide certain communication she'd be much more effective having a totally private, unknown account for those.  

 
Arsenal of Doom said:
How would having separate work and personal e-mails change that? Every e-mail she sent to other gov't accounts is archived on gov't systems already and if she really wanted to hide certain communication she'd be much more effective having a totally private, unknown account for those.  
Click to expand...
That would have been preferable to leaving national security vulnerable due to her caring more about her own privacy and convenience than the country's safety.

 
Arsenal of Doom said:
How would having separate work and personal e-mails change that? Every e-mail she sent to other gov't accounts is archived on gov't systems already and if she really wanted to hide certain communication she'd be much more effective having a totally private, unknown account for those.  
Click to expand...
Hillary did have multiple accounts, and this also presumes that everything official she did was copied to someone at State. Hillary could keep the public private by simply not copying someone at State on anything where they were not copied already.

 
The Commish said:
The filters themselves don't, but the lack of a handshake between them can.  Should also be noted that disabling a spam filter probably isn't a huge deal on an individual computer, the server that processes those emails out to the client is for sure less secure.  It no longer has it's mechanism in place to prevent the passing of emails.  At least that's how it works on exchange....not sure if that's what they use or not.  So while it may not "reduce other security settings on the individual PC or on the network" it certainly reduces the security on the servers processing the emails making it significantly easier to get onto the network and pass out the opportunity for a click.  Lazy phishing looks for any opportunity to get that click from the user and relies on dumb users to click.  Hacking into a system looks for a single access point so they can use it as a "base" to explore to plan where they're going to go next, which is where the server security (of the OS and server applications) comes into play.  Servers have much different software on them than a PC does.  They need to because they are typically consumers and communicators of data and there's much more information about the overall environment on a server than a PC.

And I'm not sure this is true, but I can't speak for all of corporate America.  It's a last resort for us.  For the simple fact that we know we can't allow an unprotected communication.  So there's no point in turning it off because we know it can't work that way while "live".  We don't turn ours off.  We have to figure it out.  We JUST had to do something like this with secure file transfers a couple weeks ago actually.  That said, even if you were 100% correct, "other people do it too" really isn't a compelling reason to overlook something like this IMO.  I can sorta understand it in corporate America where there is an industry standard based on the data being communicated, but our government doesn't have an "industry" to compare itself to.  It is a unique beast all of it's own with data not like anything corporate America deals with.  They should have their own rules and standards elevated to a point where they seem absurd to you and me IMO.  And to be clear, there are portions of our government that do.  The NSA and CIA have these standards.  On the military side the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and his staff have this standard.  So it exists.
Click to expand...
I believe that every other response (except the first one) to Saints and you I have included the real risks of this action.  And I'm not sure about "the" standard at State, but the clearly stated opinion was that restoring communication of the second or third (depending on administration) most important person in the executive branch  "should trump all other activities".   Seems about right!  Go ahead and argue that restoring such communication should not have required such an approach (I'll agree), but that is an indictment of our investment in IT within the government (including staff) and says nothing about Hillary's server.

 
bueno said:
If she gets away with it as SOS. you think she will do the same thing as President?
Click to expand...
I think the big Pandora's box is still whether the FBI has recovered the remainder (all the metadata for all her emails plus obviously the deleted ones). There are a couple court cases where that data, or at least the public portion of it, has been demanded via Foia. Whether Hillary takes any steps on that to block such a release if the data has been recovered will be big. Otoh State and DOJ have already been actively running interference so maybe nothing changes there, but if the FBI announces in some way they have the data there will be fireworks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
How does Hillary mixing in work email with her personal email on one server in one account achieve the goal of keeping her private emails private?  I have no doubts that someone under the scrutiny that Hillary has been under for decades would be motivated to keep her private stuff private, but unless you believe that Hillary naively believed that somehow she could keep it all private or that the server gave her control she (and every other government employees) wouldn't already have to use her discretion in deciding which was which this would not seem to be a motivation of mixing them all together.
Click to expand...
BFS you just answered your own question.

Btw Hillary still believes she voluntarily handed this information over, she has never acknowledged that any of this is public records. She still believes it is all  private because it's on a private server. She thinks that.
Click to expand...
This is just plain stupid!

 
Philo said:
Because she would be free to mix the personal, the private, and the criminal all in one place, then have full control to delete the evidence later. Like she did. 
Click to expand...
She had full control to delete anything on a .gov account from her account and it would be gone forever in about six months.  Well except for the copies that went to or from other parties that saved them.  So exactly what additional control did she achieve?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Hillary did have multiple accounts, and this also presumes that everything official she did was copied to someone at State. Hillary could keep the public private by simply not copying someone at State on anything where they were not copied already.
Click to expand...
Sure, and again she could easily do that by not using her primary e-mail. Or not e-mailing at all. How many e-mail records do we have from Condi Rice? None, since she didn't use e-mail preferring to communicate by phone or other means. Should all public official phone conversations be recorded and made publicly available? Texts? One-on-one conversations? 

Having said that, Hillary clearly opened herself up to it by pushing for the private server to begin with. Her judgement and hubris clearly show through and she deserves the scrutiny. There is way too much confirmation bias going on for people convinced she committed a crime though, and it's iron clad logic for some. 

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
She had full control to delete anything on a .gov account from her account and it would be gone forever in about six months.  Well except for the copies that went to or from other parties that saved them.  So exactly what additional control did she achieve?
Click to expand...
My guess - is she never considered that her emails would be safer from prying eyes on a gov server.

She wanted to be able to control what was in the hands of the government, and what was not in their hands.

 
Arsenal of Doom said:
Sure, and again she could easily do that by not using her primary e-mail. Or not e-mailing at all. How many e-mail records do we have from Condi Rice? None, since she didn't use e-mail preferring to communicate by phone or other means. Should all public official phone conversations be recorded and made publicly available? Texts? One-on-one conversations? 

Having said that, Hillary clearly opened herself up to it by pushing for the private server to begin with. Her judgement and hubris clearly show through and she deserves the scrutiny. There is way too much confirmation bias going on for people convinced she committed a crime though, and it's iron clad logic for some. 
Click to expand...
On the bolded - Well you say that but from Hillary's perspective she believed - fully - that everything she did on that one email was 100% private because she assumed that since it was on a private server it would all remain private. Thus there was no reason for her to go skulking around on her extra email accounts. She had full and complete confidence that everything she did would remain under her control.

Now if we presume she was using those extra accounts for 'skulking' and her HDR22 email was pristine then she had zero reason to delete all her material. However clearly the only reason to think someone would extract something from her remaining correspondence is if she indeed had some arguably public material on there. Now what she was doing with those extra accounts (numbering at least 15-21 and maybe a couple others) we don't know. However we know Hillary treated her HDR22 as her 'official' email, so we should too. Basically what this idiot did was she took a private email with public stuff on it and she essentially converted it into an official public email with private stuff on it. Dumb as the day is long.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Arsenal of Doom said:
Every e-mail she sent to other gov't accounts is archived on gov't systems already
Click to expand...
Actually this wasn't true.  It has been for Kerry for about a year or so, but archiving of email was the responsibility of the individual employee.  The email server at State were space starved and employees were expected to archive to local .pst files and delete from the server.  The backups for the servers generally were for six months.  This is essentially the point of the first half of the IG report.

The rest of your post that was cut out is spot on though.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
On the bolded - Well you say that but from Hillary's perspective she believed - fully - that everything she did on that one email because she assumed that since it was on a private server it would all remain private. Thus there was no reason for her to go skulking around on her extra email accounts. She had full and complete confidence that everything she did would remain under her control.

Now if we presume she was using those extra accounts for 'skulking' and her HDR22 email was pristine then she had zero reason to delete all her material. However clearly the only reason to think someone would extract something from her remaining correspondence is if she indeed had some arguably public material on there. Now what she was doing with those extra accounts (numbering at least 15-21 and maybe a couple others) we don't know.
Click to expand...
Beyond the simple explanation that it's actually just personal e-mail that she didn't want available? While fairly mundane I wouldn't want my personal e-mails poured over by gov't officials let alone available to everyone via FOIA requests. Why did she delete all those e-mails if you are trying to cover up but leave 22 that apparently contained some degree of sensitive information (albeit retroactive from when they were sent)? 

Again, she clearly opened herself up to this scrutiny. But that doesn't mean that the act of deleting what she says were personal e-mails from the account is evidence of wrong doing. 

 
Arsenal of Doom said:
Beyond the simple explanation that it's actually just personal e-mail that she didn't want available? While fairly mundane I wouldn't want my personal e-mails poured over by gov't officials let alone available to everyone via FOIA requests. Why did she delete all those e-mails if you are trying to cover up but leave 22 that apparently contained some degree of sensitive information (albeit retroactive from when they were sent)? 

Again, she clearly opened herself up to this scrutiny. But that doesn't mean that the act of deleting what she says were personal e-mails from the account is evidence of wrong doing. 
Click to expand...
That would explain the deletion of the "private" emails - though to say no one wants their personal emails made public is obviously true it begs the issue because if they were truly private they would never be made public anyway - however it does not explain the complete destruction of the metadata behind the public records. When I say "all her material" that's what I'm referring to.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
That would explain the deletion of the "private" emails - though to say no one wants their personal emails made public is obviously true it begs the issue because if they were truly private they would never be made public anyway - however it does not explain the complete destruction of the metadata behind the public records. When I say "all her material" that's what I'm referring to.
Click to expand...
Hillary was required to return the emails in the form of paper.  You should know this by now.  

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Hillary was required to return the emails in the form of paper.  You should know this by now.  
Click to expand...
Even if you accept that - and we've covered it and I disagree, with cites buried in here but also because of the greater ease of extracting and transferring vs paper - that does not explain the deletion of the metadata behind it. If you do suggest that the metadata is irrelevant if that was the case then the FBI would not have seized the server. Obviously the only point of that action would be to recover and examine actual electronic data and metadata.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Sorry can you be more specific?
Click to expand...
The "longtime aid to the president"  registered clintonmail.com in January 2009.  He sent  the  "However the facts bear this out " email (which did not support your claim by the way) on the 9th day of January 2011.  Teneo was founded in June of 2011.   My thoughts are a future employee for a company that did not exist until June 2011 working for Hillary in January of 2009 or January of 2011 did not create any evidence of any wrong doing including but not limited to conflict of interest.   

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
However, this brings to light one more point - server administration:

- follow up question for you - WHY is a member of a private investment firm, here Justin Cooper of Teneo, in administrative control of the server of the Secretary of State for the United States?
Click to expand...
@Bottomfeeder Sports - Thoughts?
Click to expand...
An email from January of the year a company was founded is evidence of wrongdoing?
Click to expand...
Ok one more time:

According to the New York State Corporation & Business Entity Database, Teneo Strategy Consulting LLC was registered on November 18, 2009, which was two months after Declan Kelly was appointed to the No. Ireland envoy post by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It may not be related to the firm that was co-founded in 2009, 2010 or 2011, but it was registered by a former associate with the Wall Street firm, Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP.
Click to expand...
http://ronbryn.blogspot.com/2015/03/associated-press-lawsuit-against-state.html

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
The "longtime aid to the president"  registered clintonmail.com in January 2009.  He sent  the  "However the facts bear this out " email (which did not support your claim by the way) on the 9th day of January 2011.  Teneo was founded in June of 2011.   My thoughts are a future employee for a company that did not exist until June 2011 working for Hillary in January of 2009 or January of 2011 did not create any evidence of any wrong doing including but not limited to conflict of interest.   
Click to expand...



NYS Department of State

 


Division of Corporations

 


Entity Information


The information contained in this database is current through June 24, 2016.

Selected Entity Name: MSJ PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC

Selected Entity Status Information


Current Entity Name:


TENEO STRATEGY CONSULTING LLC


DOS ID #:


3880171


Initial DOS Filing Date:


NOVEMBER 18, 2009


County:


NEW YORK


Jurisdiction:


NEW YORK


Entity Type:


DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY


Current Entity Status:


ACTIVE


 


Selected Entity Address Information


DOS Process (Address to which DOS will mail process if accepted on behalf of the entity)


C/O CARTER LEDYARD & MILBURN LLP
ATTN: MARY BETH WERNER LEE ESQ
2 WALL STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 10005


Registered Agent


NONE






 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
First sentence of your blog says it "officially launched" when?
Click to expand...
Teneo received $3.4M Rockefeller Foundation grant before it officially launched in 2011; Most media outlets ignore CEO of firm Huma Abedin worked for while at State Dept. was appointed economic envoy to N. Ireland by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2009; $3.4M grant plus firm, trademark and website registrations suggest Clinton ally co-founded Teneo while at State Dept.; Reports: Staff employed by State Dept. as administrative support for Clinton envoy were hired by Teneo; 2 current Teneo VPs worked with envoy Declan Kelly; New mystery: Who does Clinton emails domain registrant work for now?
Click to expand...
- (eta) - Obviously "officially" here refers to what Teneo "officially" publicly says in its public materials, but they were founded in 2009 per the NY State corporations database.

- So ok who was Justin Cooper working for in January 2011?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
You are the one making the accusations.   
Click to expand...
And providing cites all the way. Let me know if you think any are wrong.

One of Clinton’s aides, an efficient young man named Justin Cooper, who carries the bags and makes sure that every detail is in order, interrupted and handed him a cell phone.

“Hillary!” Clinton shouted into the phone. He started walking to the rear of the plane. “Hillary, did you see that?”

When he came back, he was wearing a pair of gold-rimmed half-glasses and was chewing on an unlit cigar. Some on the plane were starting to get calls about Zidane.

“Hillary told me all about it,” Clinton said. “I can’t imagine what he must have been thinking.”
Click to expand...


In every city where he had time, Clinton called for a few hours of cultural expeditions or shopping—a break. In Durban, he’d picked up an eight-foot-tall wooden giraffe for Hillary (“She loves giraffes!”) and at a crafts store in Addis he bought loads of gifts for friends and staff, including a gigantic silver Coptic crucifix. His aide Justin Cooper left the store with his arms so full he looked as if he had looted it. Then, at Clinton’s command, we visited the National Museum, which houses the bones of “Lucy,” a hominid who lived more than three million years ago. The museum was dingy and underfunded, but the guides were thrilled to open the place to Clinton, even though it was their day off. As he walked past the exhibits, Clinton listened a little and talked a lot. He talked about the giant pigs, the razorbacks, that roam his home state. And as he walked past some of the display cases he started talking about the wonders of the bonobo apes.

“They have the most incredibly developed social sense,” he said. “When one of them makes a kill, they share the food, unlike all the other apes.” And then, Clinton said, with a laugh, “they fall down to the ground and have group sex! It’s a way of relieving aggression!” Such behavior, he said, “would drive the Christian right crazy!”
Click to expand...
It was a steam bath on the tarmac, worse than Ethiopia or Liberia. Justin Cooper and others unloaded Clinton’s bags and the gifts he’d bought and the gifts he’d been given by the various African leaders. I’m fairly sure Stanley came home from the Congo with fewer trinkets than Clinton did from this trip. Justin came down the steps lugging Clinton’s golf clubs, the Presidential seal on the side of the bag. Finally, someone gently laid the wooden giraffe in the Secret Service S.U.V.
Click to expand...


- Well that's what Cooper was doing in 2006.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
However, this brings to light one more point - server administration:

- follow up question for you - WHY is a member of a private investment firm, here Justin Cooper of Teneo, in administrative control of the server of the Secretary of State for the United States?
Click to expand...
@Bottomfeeder Sports - Thoughts?
Click to expand...
An email from January of the year a company was founded is evidence of wrongdoing?
Click to expand...
One other point on this - Teneo claims that it was founded in later 2011 and you claim that Cooper could not have been working for Teneo then but it's on the actual email (page 2) that Doug Band of Teneo is copied there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
254K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top