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 (10 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
NorvilleBarnes said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
B2 - None of the emails were classified while Hillary maintained them.  
Click to expand...
This is incorrect.
Click to expand...
All of the classification of emails was done after they were handed over and  the server(s) decommissioned.   I guess you may wish to argue that this is untrue because either

  • Hillary;s legal team retained copies of the emails on thumb drives
  • The server was apparently not "wiped" 
  • IT contractors had backups
  • Or the information within a few (as far as we know) of the emails parallels information classified by other agencies
  • Please don't point to expiration dates as if they are meaningful
None of those arguments based on current level of released information rise to the level to changing my mind.  You are free to disagree, but as long as reasonable people can disagree the benefit of the doubt belongs with the accused.

 
squistion said:
Depends on percentage of votes Bernie gets in the remaining states. Some pundits are still discussing what it would take for Bernie to win.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/march-22-primaries-arizona-utah-presidential-election-2016/


David Wasserman 11:38 PM
Warning: Bernie Sanders Not As Close As He May Appear Tonight


According to our delegate tracker, Sanders needs about 58 percent of the delegates from here on out to overtake Clinton in the pledged delegate count. Some of tonight’s results might give Bernie backers false hope: He could easily reach that share of the vote in Idaho and Utah. But as our scorecard indicates, wins of that magnitude won’t help Sanders meaningfully chip away at Clinton’s 300-pledged delegate lead. And, as Nate has noted, Arizona could easily negate Sanders delegate leads out of Idaho and Utah.
Click to expand...
First of all, thanks.

As an aside I think it's interesting that this is the same math which was required of Trump a couple weeks ago, after Oh/Mo,  i.e. roughly 60% of the delegates moving forward. Totally different situations of course.

 
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-03-23/rolling-stone-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
 


Mar 22, 2016
Rolling Stone Endorses Hillary Clinton for President

Hillary Clinton is the “clear and urgent voice” that should be president, Rolling Stone says in editorial by Editor and Publisher Jann S. Wenner.

  • Editorial slated for Friday edition of magazine says Bernie Sanders’ anger over inequality “is not a plan; it is not a reason to wield power; it is not a reason for hope”

    “It’s easy to blame billionaires for everything, but quite another to know what to do about it,” Wenner adds



 
squistion said:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-03-23/rolling-stone-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
 


Mar 22, 2016
Rolling Stone Endorses Hillary Clinton for President

Hillary Clinton is the “clear and urgent voice” that should be president, Rolling Stone says in editorial by Editor and Publisher Jann S. Wenner.

  • Editorial slated for Friday edition of magazine says Bernie Sanders’ anger over inequality “is not a plan; it is not a reason to wield power; it is not a reason for hope”

    “It’s easy to blame billionaires for everything, but quite another to know what to do about it,” Wenner adds
Click to expand...
Hillarious given that Sanders actually does have plans to do something about it while Clinton does nothing but pay lip service to the issue.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So the next 3 weeks project to be the most annoying of the campaign, with Sanders notching several victories. But Clinton is poised to be back at her 300 delegate plus lead after April 19 and 26. 

 
squistion said:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-03-23/rolling-stone-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
 


Mar 22, 2016
Rolling Stone Endorses Hillary Clinton for President

Hillary Clinton is the “clear and urgent voice” that should be president, Rolling Stone says in editorial by Editor and Publisher Jann S. Wenner.

  • Editorial slated for Friday edition of magazine says Bernie Sanders’ anger over inequality “is not a plan; it is not a reason to wield power; it is not a reason for hope”

    “It’s easy to blame billionaires for everything, but quite another to know what to do about it,” Wenner adds
Click to expand...
Rolling. Stone.

I'm going to try to think of a major publication that has less journalistic credibility at this particular point.

Nope, can't think of any.

 
Trey said:
So the next 3 weeks project to be the most annoying of the campaign, with Sanders notching several victories. But Clinton is poised to be back at her 300 delegate plus lead after April 19 and 26. 
Click to expand...

Actually this would be annoying.

 
My guess is:

95% someone is recommended for indictment

65% Hillary is

55% someone is actually indicted 

20% Hillary is

And timeline:  Decision made by June 30

Curious how others would map it?

 
I'm idealistic enough to believe that if Clinton is referred for indictment, she WILL in fact be indicted and prosecuted. I put that referral at about 80%. Others? Someone else for referral? 

A leadpipe cinch for referral, indictment and prosecution ~ 100%.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
FOIA only.

Earlier I went through the timeline and pulled out all the entries related to Hillary changing her position on sending classified emails. Spoiler: she did. And Lied.

This time I pulled out only the entries related to FOIA violations. 

https://sharylattkisson.com/hillary-clintons-email-the-definitive-timeline/
Click to expand...
"Among other revelations, they show that Freedom of Information (FOI) law was violatedsince responsive emails had not been provided earlier under various FOI requests."

So I guess we have it on the authority of an internet blogger that the U.S. Government violated the FOIA law when it did not produce records that it either did not possess or did not find in its searches.  

 
pettifogger said:
"Among other revelations, they show that Freedom of Information (FOI) law was violatedsince responsive emails had not been provided earlier under various FOI requests."

So I guess we have it on the authority of an internet blogger that the U.S. Government violated the FOIA law when it did not produce records that it either did not possess or did not find in its searches.  
Click to expand...
The State IG produced a report on this I do believe.

 
Mr. Ham said:
My guess is:

95% someone is recommended for indictment

65% Hillary is

55% someone is actually indicted 

20% Hillary is

And timeline:  Decision made by June 30

Curious how others would map it?
Click to expand...
Ok I'll play

70% someone is recommended for indictment (including minions, IT, and anything from misdemeanor to the big stuff)

50% Hillary is (I base this on an article posted by BFS wherein a security lawyer I have read and respect indicated that to him it was a "jury issue", which to me typically means 50/50) (I will add that if a FBI team handling this knows it will be DOA then they are less likely to sign on the bottom line anyway, so arguably maybe this goes down to 33%) (also have to remember she will be bringing the biggest baddest lawyers on the globe and if elected, which looks very likely right now, Hillary will bring revenge, hell and fury like no one's business).

15-20% someone is actually indicted (I could see some minion agreeing to a misdemeanor, with suspended sentence, then later hired at the WH complete with clemency or pardon)

5% Hillary is (there are around 5 fig leafs available for the bored and the devoted, that's all they need).

And timeline:  Decision made by May 20

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't see how Huma does not get indicted.  She will probably get pardoned.  Politically, there is no chance at an indictment for Hillary.    If Hillary is elected, impeachment will be an the table from day1.  The GOP will remain in control of the house and senate and Hillary would have won because her name is not Trump.  It will be a total clusterduck.  I have no idea why the Dems are afraid to nominate Bernie.  

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
All of the classification of emails was done after they were handed over and  the server(s) decommissioned.   I guess you may wish to argue that this is untrue because either

  • Hillary;s legal team retained copies of the emails on thumb drives
  • The server was apparently not "wiped" 
  • IT contractors had backups
  • Or the information within a few (as far as we know) of the emails parallels information classified by other agencies
  • Please don't point to expiration dates as if they are meaningful
None of those arguments based on current level of released information rise to the level to changing my mind.  You are free to disagree, but as long as reasonable people can disagree the benefit of the doubt belongs with the accused.
Click to expand...
No I disagree because the Inspector General reported they were classified.

I like you BFS so I just want to clarify I'm arguing the topic, not ifighting with you.

After the IG report, Hillary adjusted her public statements to never sending/receiving emails that were "marked classified".

But a few months after that (Nov 2015) the State Dept admitted some of the emails had classified markings.

A few weeks after that (Jan 2016) the Inspector General reported to congress that several dozen emails had been identified, some with higher classification than top secret.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Other than qualifying for "women I'm oddly attracted to" she hasn't been on my radar. What grounds for indictment?
Click to expand...
First, she is what triggered the investigation because she emailed classified information from several agencies outside of State department.  Furthermore she had two other salaried jobs while working full time for the state department and in several cases made 'mistakes' on her hours such as claiming working while on vacation to the tune of about $40k in fraudulent time.   Her outside jobs in seceral cases created a conflict of interest.  I think she is toast and will be the fall guy for Hillary. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The biggest factor is if the FBI recovered Hillary's deleted email stash, and remember Hillary was largely pulling from one email add for her Foia productions. She had multiple email addresses. All those were stashed at one time in that tin can they yanked out of the Raiders of the Lost Ark warehouse in Jersey.

IF they recovered those, then it's Walter Payton breaking into the open field.

Backup scenario is if all else fails and the DOJ pushes Comey's head underwater then all they have to do is file a letter in federal court reporting they have the additional documents available for Foia.

If they recovered them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
Guess we lost him for the night.  In case anyone's wondering, it's not to my knowledge.  In fact, the Department of State regulations even allow classified information to be transmitted via email.  See, e.g.: 5 FAM 753.1 "Marking Email: Classification and Sensitivity Markings."

I would imagine that the difficulty generally comes with the difference between internet email and intranet email.
Click to expand...
Yes you did...

The difficulty is that there are different networks (intranets) within the government.   I've tried to be annoyingly precise with things like "non secured email", ",gov email" - which itself may not really be precise enough but I guess I was sloppy.   I'm not pretending to be an expert beyond this point being repeated enough both in the media and in here that I have accepted it to be a fact that classified information should not exist on the nonsecured network where an @state.gov email would reside.   Is this wrong?

753.1 Classification and Sensitivity Markings

a. Classified emails must be marked in accordance with E.O.13526. Limited distribution email should include marking in accordance with requirements in 5 FAH-2 H-440 Captions and Handling Instructions and 5 FAM 460 The Privacy Act and Personally Identifiable information. b. SMART provides an automated tool to mark and correctly place drafterprovided classification and sensitivity designators in the header and metadata fields of the email. The drafter must manually format the portion markings for classified messages, especially portion marking each subject line, headers, and paragraphs.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Yes you did...

The difficulty is that there are different networks (intranets) within the government.   I've tried to be annoyingly precise with things like "non secured email", ",gov email" - which itself may not really be precise enough but I guess I was sloppy.   I'm not pretending to be an expert beyond this point being repeated enough both in the media and in here that I have accepted it to be a fact that classified information should not exist on the nonsecured network where an @state.gov email would reside.   Is this wrong?

753.1 Classification and Sensitivity Markings

a. Classified emails must be marked in accordance with E.O.13526. Limited distribution email should include marking in accordance with requirements in 5 FAH-2 H-440 Captions and Handling Instructions and 5 FAM 460 The Privacy Act and Personally Identifiable information. b. SMART provides an automated tool to mark and correctly place drafterprovided classification and sensitivity designators in the header and metadata fields of the email. The drafter must manually format the portion markings for classified messages, especially portion marking each subject line, headers, and paragraphs.
Click to expand...
On that second part you're reading that wrong, documents are marked because they're classified, they're not classified because they're marked.

 
Probably the best example of this was when Brett Baer asked Hillary what she would do if she was writing an email with classified information in it.

Hillary did not answer.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
....

I am not proposing anything.  If I were to propose something then it would be that the government should, assuming it hasn't already invest

  • in systems upgrades so that no one is using private email because the government systems are too cumbersome (not meant to apply to Hillary)
  • in technology that automatically archives all emails so the IRS situation and now the State Department spends no effort in trying to find emails
  • make all email publically accessible  a short predetermined time to allow for rare exceptions after being sent from a .gov or opened if from outside of .gov   (There goes Ivan's fantasy football advantages...)
  • etc
But of course addressing real problems doesn't happen when we waste so much energy on this kind of nonsense.
Click to expand...
...On the second one, yeah on 1-2, on no. 3 though (Ivan aside, and actually I get those emails too, but I really don't care if anyone looks at them, unlike Hillary and her super secret yoga routines) the answer is solved by points 1-2, if everything is on the .gov then everything can be retained and searched by IT and Archives.
Click to expand...
5 FAM 752 USING THE EMAIL SYSTEM (CT:IM-122; 11-14-2011)

a. IRM determines the limit of each user’s mailbox, based on technology and available hardware. The limit does NOT include Microsoft personal folders, which are stored in .pst files on a network drive rather than on an Exchange server. Email attachments are subject to size and type restrictions according to policy. Attachments larger than 30 MB are prohibited and will not be delivered.

b. When a user’s mailbox reaches its limit, IRM works with the user to apply best practices/email tips to reduce the mailbox size, and/or create personal folders and help move mailbox items to the .pst file. To ensure this is done in a timely manner, IRM reserves the right to create .pst files and move items to them on behalf of the user. This is necessary in cases when the user is out of the office on leave/travel or delays taking action to reduce the .pst file size. Should this become necessary, IRM records the location of the personal folder and ensures the user is notified of the change.

c. The IRM Email Review Board reviews requests for exceptions to the mailbox storage limit. Guidance on exceptions, including how to request increased mailbox size, is available at the Email Mailbox Management Web site on the “Request Procedure” tab.

After reading the above all I can say it is that it should not be any wonder that government employees opted for private accounts.  And thank God that Hillary had the good sense to use a private server so that they could be archived.   No wonder how the IRS emails were lost.  No wonder that "emailing to a .gov account so they could be archived" would not work really well.  No wonder that the State Department is still hiring to find people to handle the FOIA requests.  I can't imagine how spending on my first two items (assuming not already addressed) would not immediately pay for itself.

As for my third item I believe it creates minimal additional costs and would offer at least the following benefits-

  • Allows the government to exclude email from FOIA requests (since the information would already be readily available)
  • Would thwart leakage of classified information 
  • Would thwart using the email for personal business
 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Happy Birthday ACA!

Glad that despite your imperfections that guys like BassNBrew have personally benefited, even if his state jerked him around with its Medicaid implementation.
Click to expand...


Another swing and miss BFS.  You need to focus on defending one broken and miserable thing at a time.

Your gal will attempt to prop up the ACA wreck in between fattening the wallets of Big Pharma and Wall St while Bernie would actually do something to fix the problem.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
5 FAM 752 USING THE EMAIL SYSTEM (CT:IM-122; 11-14-2011)

a. IRM determines the limit of each user’s mailbox, based on technology and available hardware. The limit does NOT include Microsoft personal folders, which are stored in .pst files on a network drive rather than on an Exchange server. Email attachments are subject to size and type restrictions according to policy. Attachments larger than 30 MB are prohibited and will not be delivered.

b. When a user’s mailbox reaches its limit, IRM works with the user to apply best practices/email tips to reduce the mailbox size, and/or create personal folders and help move mailbox items to the .pst file. To ensure this is done in a timely manner, IRM reserves the right to create .pst files and move items to them on behalf of the user. This is necessary in cases when the user is out of the office on leave/travel or delays taking action to reduce the .pst file size. Should this become necessary, IRM records the location of the personal folder and ensures the user is notified of the change.

c. The IRM Email Review Board reviews requests for exceptions to the mailbox storage limit. Guidance on exceptions, including how to request increased mailbox size, is available at the Email Mailbox Management Web site on the “Request Procedure” tab.

After reading the above all I can say it is that it should not be any wonder that government employees opted for private accounts.  And thank God that Hillary had the good sense to use a private server so that they could be archived.   No wonder how the IRS emails were lost.  No wonder that "emailing to a .gov account so they could be archived" would not work really well.  No wonder that the State Department is still hiring to find people to handle the FOIA requests.  I can't imagine how spending on my first two items (assuming not already addressed) would not immediately pay for itself.

As for my third item I believe it creates minimal additional costs and would offer at least the following benefits-

  • Allows the government to exclude email from FOIA requests (since the information would already be readily available)
  • Would thwart leakage of classified information 
  • Would thwart using the email for personal business
Click to expand...
I feel like we've changed subjects

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
all I can say it is that it should not be any wonder that government employees opted for private accounts.  And thank God that Hillary had the good sense to use a private server so that they could be archived.  
Click to expand...
BFS what I find strange or odd is that you and I probably, I think, agree on Foia and whistle blower protections. I am almost certain of this. And I realize that you are not a Hillary fanbot, and I appreciate that too.

BUT, what you are arguing for are things that (IMO) are likely against your principles.

Hillary IRL was only discovered to have had her official documents in her private server because of the Guccifer leak and the fact that people and groups who had requested her records through Foia and other requests had figured out they were getting nothing actually from Hillary herself after 5+ years. Hillary was not doing anything for purposes of public retention, she was doing nothing for public transparency, she was doing nothing for the public interest.

Not only did she stash and hide everything in her basement (and wherever the hell else it was backed up) she created the user name "H" and the handle "HDR" to avoid even people searching in official repositories to find her documentation.

Hillary was hiding documents from public disclosure. This is two bit, small town stuff.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
I don't see how Huma does not get indicted.  She will probably get pardoned.  Politically, there is no chance at an indictment for Hillary.    If Hillary is elected, impeachment will be an the table from day1.  The GOP will remain in control of the house and senate and Hillary would have won because her name is not Trump.  It will be a total clusterduck.  I have no idea why the Dems are afraid to nominate Bernie.  
Click to expand...
Idiotic given that she will have unlimited security clearance as President.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
No I disagree because the Inspector General reported they were classified.

I like you BFS so I just want to clarify I'm arguing the topic, not ifighting with you.

After the IG report, Hillary adjusted her public statements to never sending/receiving emails that were "marked classified".

But a few months after that (Nov 2015) the State Dept admitted some of the emails had classified markings.

A few weeks after that (Jan 2016) the Inspector General reported to congress that several dozen emails had been identified, some with higher classification than top secret.
Click to expand...
What I recall from November is that the information from original two emails that created the security review were supposedly classified a few days after those were sent/received and a heightening of the NDA discussions but I don't recall - nor can I now find any reference to such a State Department admission.   Am I missing something either in the news or misreading your reference?

 
make all email publicly accessible  a short predetermined time to allow for rare exceptions after being sent from a .gov or opened if from outside of .gov   (There goes Ivan's fantasy football advantages...)
Click to expand...


As for my third item I believe it creates minimal additional costs and would offer at least the following benefits-

  • Allows the government to exclude email from FOIA requests (since the information would already be readily available)
  • Would thwart leakage of classified information 
  • Would thwart using the email for personal business
Click to expand...


Ok BFS I'm willing to reconsider this. But you realize that would be the end of executive privilege and the end of government secrets altogether, right? So basically leaders and government employees who want to use email to talk about spying, or the next USSC justice, or how to handle a recalcitrant Senator on some bill, or the best way to protect a nuclear plant, they lose that ability, right? And there is no difference between email and other types of documentation. Documents is documents. So memos, handwritten notes, databases containing CAD drawings, it's all the same, you can't just limit it to email. I mean ok I see the good in this but let's face it we will be severely hamstringing our government versus other governments and even parts of our government against other parts of the government.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
make all email publicly accessible  a short predetermined time to allow for rare exceptions after being sent from a .gov or opened if from outside of .gov   (There goes Ivan's fantasy football advantages...)
Click to expand...


As for my third item I believe it creates minimal additional costs and would offer at least the following benefits-

  • Allows the government to exclude email from FOIA requests (since the information would already be readily available)
  • Would thwart leakage of classified information 
  • Would thwart using the email for personal business
Click to expand...


Ok BFS I'm willing to reconsider this. But you realize that would be the end of executive privilege and the end of government secrets altogether, right? So basically leaders and government employees who want to use email to talk about spying, or the next USSC justice, or how to handle a recalcitrant Senator on some bill, or the best way to protect a nuclear plant, they lose that ability, right? And there is no difference between email and other types of documentation. Documents is documents. So memos, handwritten notes, databases containing CAD drawings, it's all the same, you can't just limit it to email. I mean ok I see the good in this but let's face it we will be severely hamstringing our government versus other governments and even parts of our government against other parts of the government.
Click to expand...
First I already accommodated the rare exceptions.  As far as the difference between email and other documents is that the infrastructure to make emails readily available would mostly exist once the archival system was deployed with "only" a public facing front end required.   To the degree that this infrastructure existed (or is developed in the future) for other types of documents they should be included also,  

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
First I already accommodated the rare exceptions.  As far as the difference between email and other documents is that the infrastructure to make emails readily available would mostly exist once the archival system was deployed with "only" a public facing front end required.   To the degree that this infrastructure existed (or is developed in the future) for other types of documents they should be included also,  
Click to expand...
Who would determine the exceptions?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Who would determine the exceptions?
Click to expand...
We can select a few of the best at <whatever the job title is> employees that now process FOIA request to retain after those positions are largely made obsolete.  They would also be tasked with documenting the who asked for exceptions and why to drive down the rates of inappropriate behavior.   Oh, and when in doubt it should be made public.

 
cstu said:
Idiotic given that she will have unlimited security clearance as President.
Click to expand...
The president does not have a security clearance, but the position is granted access because of a need to know and authority to make the rules.  That however does not change anything which happened prior to being president, which will be a never-ending debate.  Hillary will be ineffective because she is polarizing and has more skeletons in her closet than Arlington cemetery.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
The president does not have a security clearance, but the position is granted access because of a need to know and authority to make the rules.  That however does not change anything which happened prior to being president, which will be a never-ending debate.  Hillary will be ineffective because she is polarizing and has more skeletons in her closet than Arlington cemetery.  
Click to expand...
Well one of the beauties of Clinton I is that Hillary will continue to be sued for Foia issues and is subject to depositions into her presidency.

Btw this guy is an admiral in the Navy and he lost his security clearance.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
We can select a few of the best at <whatever the job title is> employees that now process FOIA request to retain after those positions are largely made obsolete.  They would also be tasked with documenting the who asked for exceptions and why to drive down the rates of inappropriate behavior.   Oh, and when in doubt it should be made public.
Click to expand...
Ok I think your idea is admirable, and we're both in the end shooting for the same thing, but this sounds exactly like the current system or how it should work. If everyone is by reg on .gov it all ends up on gov servers, the IT or archives takes in all the email and other documentation, has the experts for the various departments affected categorize it, and then kicks out what is left out to Foia or Congress or whoever has a right.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ok I think your idea is admirable, and we're both in the end shooting for the same thing, but this sounds exactly like the current system or how it should work. If everyone is by reg on .gov it all ends up on gov servers, the IT or archives takes in all the email and other documentation, has the experts for the various departments affected categorize it, and then kicks out what is left out to Foia or Congress or whoever has a right.
Click to expand...
Not if this is still true that the "best practice" is to archive emails to random .pst files set up by users - unless they are on vacation of course to manage server mailbox sizes.  This is not a sane setup.

 
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
258K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 8 (members: 0, guests: 8)
Back
Top