Slashdot Mirror
Clinton's First Email Server Was a Power Mac Tower (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader shares with us an excerpt from a report via Ars Technica: As she was being confirmed as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton contacted Colin Powell to ask him about his use of a Blackberry while in the same role. According to a Federal Bureau of Investigations memorandum published today (PDF), Powell warned Clinton that if it became public that she was using a Blackberry to "do business," her e-mails would be treated as "official" record and be subject to the law. "Be very careful," Powell said according to the FBI. "I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data." Perhaps Clinton's troubles began when she switched from a Blackberry-hosted e-mail account to an account on her Clintonemail.com domain -- a domain hosted on an Apple Power Mac "G4 or G5" tower running in the Clintons' Chappaqua, New York residence. The switch to the Power Mac as a server occurred the same month she exchanged messages with Powell. The Power Mac, originally purchased in 2007 by former President Clinton's aide Justin Cooper, had acted as the server for presidentclinton.com and wjcoffice.com. Cooper managed most of the technology support for Bill Clinton and took charge of setting up Hillary Clinton's new personal mail system on the Power Mac, which sat alongside a firewall and network switching hardware in the basement of the Clintons' home. But the Power Mac was having difficulty handling the additional load created by Blackberry usage from Secretary Clinton and her staff, so a decision was made quickly to upgrade the server hardware. Secretary Clinton's deputy chief of staff at the State Department, Huma Abedin, connected Cooper with Brian Pagliano, who had worked in IT for the secretary's 2008 presidential campaign. Cooper inquired with Pagliano about getting some of the campaign's computer hardware as a replacement for the Power Mac, and Pagliano was in the process of selling the equipment off.
I could see being confused about the difference between a G3 and G4 tower if you're colorblind, but a G5? I mean, it was either grey plastic or it looked like a cheese grater....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Because at the time she did this is was against State Department internal regulations, but not a criminal offense.
You only put people in jail for criminal offenses that have jail as punishment codified in the law, and even then jail is usually only one of many options available as punishment.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
"But the Power Mac was having difficulty handling the additional load created by Blackberry usage from Secretary Clinton and her staff..."
Seriously?
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
She's got a couple of hundred million in the bank and she's scrimping on the hardware? Incredible.
I've got one right here. Found it in a dumpster. It wont start but the power supply smells when I connect it to the mains. I wonder if it has Clinton emails on it?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
What about all the lies she told about the server to the FBI? Is that not a criminal offense?
Bill was also using it to watch...videos.
Being an asshole isn't illegal.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
That's not the point, any conviction would prevent her accession to the US Throne. US AG Loretta Lynch (and upper in the hierarchy) can't allow that, who knows how much "corruption" stories she could remember while in jail...
She didn't tell any lies about the server. She didn't know details any more than a major corporation CEO knows what actual physical server their mail runs on.
She has enough plausible deniability and can answer with enough vagueness to not be chargeable.
"That is what the people who run the thing told me."
In short, she had no real first-hand knowledge of the server setup other than it was in her basement and handled her e-mail. The rest is typical VIP know nothing blather.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Are you saying it couldn't handle Bubba's load? What, did they name the server "Monica"?
monica.clintonmail.com
"I'm sorry about your lack of e-mail communication with Bill, Mrs. Clinton. It seems monica went down again. We're working on it."
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Compared to what non-spooky-three-letter-acronyms government computer systems are, a G4 is a supercomputer. That's the real news for nerds story. Slashdot is now pro Trump? These Hillary used email stories are getting old...
Difficulty handling the relentless brute force attempts more likely.
The G5's where power hugs and when falling behind X86 badly at the time.
In short, she had no real first-hand knowledge of the server setup other than it was in her basement and handled her e-mail. The rest is typical VIP know nothing blather.
The scary part is that she didn't seem to understand the differences between handling classified data and unclassified data. Almost anyone else in government who mishandled classified data similarly would be a guest of a federal correctional facility for many years.
So, it is all a Black man's fault?.. Right...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Then why was the FBI investigating it?
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Finally, news nerds actually care about. Now we can have the argument over whether Hillary Clinton should be barred from office for life for using a Mac or instantly sainted for using a Mac.
Here, I'll start the ball rolling. Ban her from office! Unclean!
Amen brother !
So many violations of the law.
So many lies, so Clintonesque, lies about lying.
She is too careless with classified, too greedy, too untrustworthy
Violation of Federal records retention laws
Dangerous mishandling of secret and above material.
Lying about turning over ALL work related e-mails.
Using the department of state to grant access and favors to get Clinton Foundation donations or "speaking" fees of a quarter million bucks.
And now, having the poor IT schlub wipe an e-mail archive with bleachebit after she received a subpoena that instructed her to retain all documents..
Early 2014 – Monica Hanley advises Undisclosed PRN Staff Member to wipe the Apple MacBook clean after uploading Hillary’s emails to the new PRN server but he forgets to do it
Early 2014 - Undisclosed PRN Staff Member mails Apple MacBook back to Clinton and it is promptly lost
December 2014 – Hillary delivers 55,000 emails to State Department
December 2014 / January 2015 – Heather Samuelson and Cheryl Mills request emails be deleted from their computer using BleachBit
December 2014 / January 2015 – “Unknown Clinton staff member” instructs PRN to remove archives of Clinton emails from PRN server
March 2, 2015 - NYT releases an article showing that Hillary used a personal email server in violation of State Department rules
March 4, 2015 – Hillary receives subpoena from House Select Committee on Benghazi instructing her to preserve and deliver all emails from her personal servers
March 25, 2015 – Undisclosed PRN Staff Member has a conference call with “President Clinton’s Staff”
March 25 – 31, 2015 – Undisclosed PRN Staff Member has “oh shit” moment and realizes he forgot to wipe Hillary’s email archive from the PRN server back in Decemberwhich he promptly does using BleachBit despite later admitting he "was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton's e-mail data on the PRN server."
June 2016 – FBI discovers that Undisclosed PRN Staff Member forgot to erase 940 emails from the gmail account he created to help with the PRN server upload
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-02/fbi-report-shows-how-bleachbit-deleted-hillary-clintons-oh-shit-moment
The opaqueness and secrecy of Apple was a natural fit for Clinton.
"Gross negligence" is defined as "such a gross want of care...as to justify the presumption of willfulness "
--Black's Law Dictionary 1185 (4th ed.1968), the definitive dictionary for the legal profession;
"Whoever, being entrusted with...any document...relating to the national defense...through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
--18 U.S.C. 793(f);
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information...110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification...To be clear , this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. "
--James Comey ( transcript source: FBI National Press Office, "Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System",July 5, 2016 )
The FBI just released its notes from the meeting with Hillary Clinton regarding the email server.
Hillary Clinton used her mobile phone on a balcony outside of secured areas to check her email:
Hillary claimed to the FBI she didn't receive training on handling classified information, yet her signature shows otherwise; how is this not a direct lie to the FBI?
The whole "I don't remember getting a briefing" is such colossal bullshit. Those briefings are required by law *annually*, not just once. And she would have gotten a separate briefing when she got her clearance, and any time it was upgraded.
She understands the difference. She thinks she is above all that. Rules, like taxes, are for little people.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Mishandling classified can get you jail, and it has.
Taking money for your foundation while granting favors from the state department, some to foreign entities.
That should get you jail.
But taken in all, if not jail, certainly enough to question her judgement in handling classified information.
Most that did what she did (own server, copies on thumb drives) would lose their security clearance immediately and would be banned from other government work pending trial.
And now the health comments, she is not fit for president.
Why isn't she in jail???
Because using a Mac, though unwise, is not illegal.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Because at the time she did this is was against State Department internal regulations, but not a criminal offense.
You only put people in jail for criminal offenses that have jail as punishment codified in the law, and even then jail is usually only one of many options available as punishment.
Unless you really don't like somebody.
Then even the smallest transgression is apparently worthy of jail time.
I stole this Sig
To determine if it was a criminal offense.
The FBI doesn't investigate "crimes", they investigate incidents to see if they maybe were crimes.
It isn't a crime until there is a criminal conviction. If you shoot someone, the police will investigate. If their investigation determines that the evidence points to justifiable homicide, then *no crime has been committed*.
Unfortunately, that example will make more sense if you happen to be black.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Mishandling classified can get you jail, and it has. Taking money for your foundation while granting favors from the state department, some to foreign entities. That should get you jail.
But taken in all, if not jail, certainly enough to question her judgement in handling classified information. Most that did what she did (own server, copies on thumb drives) would lose their security clearance immediately and would be banned from other government work pending trial.
And now the health comments, she is not fit for president.
Thats just rubbish. The entire US governments runs on "taking money ... while granting favors". Thats SOP. Seriously, yes.
Health comments is Faux News BS.
Powell said according to the FBI. "I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data."
Because that's why we have laws, so that people can work to avoid following them.
In short, she had no real first-hand knowledge of the server setup other than it was in her basement and handled her e-mail. The rest is typical VIP know nothing blather.
The scary part is that she didn't seem to understand the differences between handling classified data and unclassified data.
The difference is that at a high level the state department is dealing with a crapload of data and it's not obvious whether it's classified or not.
Did that information come from source X? Well then it's classified. But from Y, well then it's not classified. Only parts A-C are classified, but D is fair game. Someone is calling Z classified but it's in a newspaper article, etc, etc.
Maybe you could make a system that makes it easy but that system apparently doesn't exist. And you could treat everything as classified but then nothing would ever get done.
Almost anyone else in government who mishandled classified data similarly would be a guest of a federal correctional facility for many years.
That would be a more convincing argument if someone ever had been in jail for something similar.
I stole this Sig
Am I missing something? There's no way that personal server could have been hosting her official email, right? I mean her h.clinton@whitehouse.gov or whatever. It would have been a different email address on her private server. So....who was sending classified emails to a non-official email address? Shouldn't they be in trouble for doing so?
A Commodore 64 would have been enough to handle the blackberry load so you and your up voters can fuck right off.
In short, she had no real first-hand knowledge of the server setup other than it was in her basement and handled her e-mail. The rest is typical VIP know nothing blather.
The scary part is that she didn't seem to understand the differences between handling classified data and unclassified data. Almost anyone else in government who mishandled classified data similarly would be a guest of a federal correctional facility for many years.
Okay, name some people who are in federal prison for the same actions. Prosecutions generally require deliberate actions.
The 3 emails they are bitching about with the C.. Well C stands for confidential. That is the lowest level of classification and according to factcheck.org and whether that was merited was debatable in the factcheck article. They apparently lacked an overall heading to declare what the page as a whole was rated, which was no doubt a screw up on someones part. So in many thousand they have found 3 after all this effort? People may not like it, but the truth she clearly did a good job at keeping at the very minimum papers and documents marked classified off her email, otherwise there would have been a hell of a lot more than 3. Again, nothing was marked secret. Nothing was marked top secret or any variation of the above.
This is not about being fair and reasonable. This is about stopping Hillary at any cost whatsoever. So many people are perfectly willing to hand the country to a con man and watch it burn just to stop her. It is not rational. After Obama got elected Trump and his ilk fanned the flames of prejudice for their own purposes. What's next once Hillary wins?
I'd really like to see Hillary do a decent job so that young women can see that there really are no limits. Most likely I will instead see another 4 years of continuous and often baseless attacks such that the only logical conclusion that young women could come to is that there is no way they are doing that, and that truly is sad.
I've worked as a consultant on various projects for the US Government for about 15 years now. Clinton keeps on running out the red herring that her using a private email server was not illegal. That's 100% true. When I'm working on a government project I'm free to use an external email server to discuss any non-classified information. However, I am not allowed to send any classified material using that server without prior, explicit approval from the security officer for the project (which you're almost never going to get). Sending classified information without that approval is a crime. It's a black and white thing, there's no ambiguity.
This is not something they're shy about telling you either. It's drilled into your head at every opportunity, most agencies require everyone (from the top down) to take online security courses every 6-12 months. Her claiming she wasn't aware of the rules/policies is either bullsh*t or she really is brain damaged.
...In real life the bad guys (gal) can use a Mac.
Who is this Ben Gozzi guy I keep hearing about? Is he running for president too?
You Don't Understand Facts are irreverent.
They do not like her or her Husband. Therefore they should be in Jail, this way they can't be in office.
Any stupid controversy is Treason.
No one has ever been tried for it before? Irreverent
Cheating on your wife? Impeach!
Someone died, she Must have killed them.
No one was sent to rescue Benghazi? Hillary over ruled the President and Pentagon!!!
Bush did the exact same thing? Who cares I liked him!
The 3 emails they are bitching about with the C.. Well C stands for confidential. That is the lowest level of classification and according to factcheck.org and whether that was merited was debatable in the factcheck article. They apparently lacked an overall heading to declare what the page as a whole was rated, which was no doubt a screw up on someones part.
Not really. This is called "portion marking" and is common in the NSI (national security information) category.
We all know that journalism is a thing of the past, and this is a perfect example. The official report says NOTHING about a Power Mac. In 2007, Apple wasn't even selling Power Macs. Furthermore, the report says that the server was experiencing connectivity issues with BlackBerries, not that it couldn't handle the load. I see no mention of load issues in the official report.
Yeah, Mac's are shit. Nobody uses them as servers. After paying the inherited 10% Jobs tax, on top of normal x86_64 costs, they are still stupid expensive. You spend $500, the minimum for a Mac-mini, and get a 1.whatever GHz shitbox. I can spend $220, and build a headless 3.3GHz Pentium with 2.133 GHz FSB, and DDR4 RAM, that runs Fedora, CentOS, Windows, etc.
And yes, opening TCP port 25 to your home server can very quickly kill the system. Forget attacks, spam alone will cause millions, if not billions, of attempted email relays.
Almost anyone else in government who mishandled classified data similarly would be a guest of a federal correctional facility for many years.
That would be a more convincing argument if someone ever had been in jail for something similar.
The government isn't likely to let the public know of incidents of classified data mishandling or their resolutution. While in the military and while working as a contractor, I was informed that mishandling of classified information can lead to long terms of incarceration.
It should be.
hmmm.... I have been running my own properly configured home based mail server for years and the load is negligible....
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
You say that as if the entire US government shouldn't be in jail.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
After working with many government agencies I would say "most" government employees do not handle classified data correctly. They receive very poor training around it and it is reflected in their practises.
for a long term of incarceration it would have be very intentional mishandling. people mishandle classified data all the time, punishments range from having to spend an extra couple of hours in a training course to loss of clearance or in extreme cases loss of job, it is extremely rare for prosecution.
I'd rather not hand it to eithe rof them. I'd rather not be forced to pick between D and R, because both get more corrupt/idiotic each election. The two party system needs to go to see real change. With tons of viable parties, the bribing might go away.
Cough, cough, you know where the fucking server was don't you, push comes to shove, drop it in the bath to kill it, not by fucking accident (what sane network admin puts a essential government server in a fucking bathroom). Only the criminally corrupt or the insane would claim the server was there for any other reason than to hide those communications from the rest of government, specifically the FBI because the NSA already new exactly what was going on and unlike the bullshit story being put out, have a full copy of every email in and out, either that or they were supremely and totally incompetent, which is not true, apart from of course the political appointees, who are not there for their skills just their willingness to criminally conspire with the other criminals who appointed them.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
While in the military and while working as a contractor, I was informed that mishandling of classified information can lead to long terms of incarceration.
I also served in the military, and afterwards, worked for a defense contractor. The S2 would occasionally conduct sweeps looking for classified info, in files, offices, desks, drawers, etc. They always found violations. The result was usually a verbal or written reprimand. I never saw anyone go to prison, or even lose their job.
Disclaimer: I am planning to vote for Gary Johnson.
No that is you Looking for reasons for her to be disqualified.
Do a Complete Search on all of Congress eMail you think it will be clean?
Rich people have more access to Politicians? Citizens United says that is 100% legal.
Not Most the Number you are looking for is None., No one was ever even tried for what she did, ever in the history of the U.S.A.
Now Heath concerns for who? is there are Health Record out there you have seen?
They did the Same thing for McCain He was sold Old he would not make 4 years let alone 8.
Learn to separate dirty pool rumors from fact.
Almost anyone else in government who mishandled classified data similarly would be a guest of a federal correctional facility for many years.
That would be a more convincing argument if someone ever had been in jail for something similar.
The government isn't likely to let the public know of incidents of classified data mishandling or their resolutution.
Why not? They're not going to tell the public the classified data, and they may even be vague about the specific exposure, but they're sure as hell going to say
"John Doe left a classified briefing on his dashboard and now he's doing 20 years of hard time!!"
While in the military and while working as a contractor, I was informed that mishandling of classified information can lead to long terms of incarceration.
Lots of things can happen, the question is whether they do happen.
The military has every reason to make you think the slightest screw up will land you in jail, that's the way to make you a lot more careful and avoid screw ups.
But it's a scare speech, no one is going to throw you in jail because you unintentionally mishandled a few classified docs.
I stole this Sig
What server software was running on the Mac? EIMS? Sendmail?
(I have run EIMS for almost 20 years - too bad the developer decided to go in a different direction.)
and there is constant compliance crap that *everyone* has to do. Loads of web quizzes and regular, mandatory seminars. Can't imagine DOD doesn't have the same sort of compliance stuff.
46 & 2
The real fear about Trump isn't that he would *be* president, but that he would abuse the *power* of the presidency.
The real fear is that now that we've allowed unchecked expansion of the powers of the presidency for decades, we're worried about it being abused.
The real answer is to use the system of checks and balances to limit the power of the presidency.
Having the obnoxious, hated, vilified Trump in office would in fact, be the greatest incentive for the judiciary and the legislative branches of the government to *do their jobs*. Heck, maybe even the press would finally hold the president accountable for corruption, law breaking, and bad faith!
If you want this country to get better, the best way is to have a president hated so much that we begin to finally curtail executive abuse of power.
Trump 2016
But neither she nor her IT folks will be found guilty or go to jail, as nobody wants to pursue the matter.
No ... the Obama administration and the Clinton machine don't want anybody to pursue the matter. See the difference? PLENTY of people would like to see her prosecuted for her deliberate law breaking.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
> The whole "I don't remember getting a briefing" is such colossal bullshit.
Wait until they recover the emails that show she was notified of, scheduled, and attended those briefings...
But neither she nor her IT folks will be found guilty or go to jail, as nobody wants to pursue the matter.
No ... the Obama administration and the Clinton machine don't want anybody to pursue the matter. See the difference? PLENTY of people would like to see her prosecuted for her deliberate law breaking.
There are people would like to see her prosecuted, but those that would do the work of pursuing the matter would probably become so depressed if they found anything that they would undertake extremely dangerous behaviors or commit suicide outright, judging from the past. So, a lot of folks want to see the matter investigated, providing they aren't the ones doing it.
Don't blame me, I voted for Ben Gazzara.
Actually, that sort of subjective approach to what is a crime is pretty much how the "old south" was run when considering violence/lynchings etc.
The entire US governments runs on "taking money ... while granting favors"
You're confusing campaign funding with putting millions of dollars directly in the Clinton family pockets, making them personally wealthy.
Health comments is Faux News BS
No, he's referring to the FBI's own notes from the interview. I know, you don't want that to have happened, but it did.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Perhaps she has Alzheimer's, that would be consistent with "I don't remember doing shit" and any judge would allow that as a valid defense.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
She thinks she is above all that.
Apparently she is. I mean, she did win the nomination, and what better rival on the other side could she ask for to divert our attention? These people are smooth operators. You'd almost think they planned it this way. To bring any of them down would put the entire crew at risk.
Nothing is going to come of this, 95% of congress will be reelected again, the universe remains in balance, so we may as well just relax. And besides, she used a Mac. That's a good thing, isn't it?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
A conviction does not, legally, prevent one from holding an elected federal office.
Because you have to indict her and then prove your charges in front of a jury?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I'd rather not hand it to eithe rof them. I'd rather not be forced to pick between D and R, because both get more corrupt/idiotic each election. The two party system needs to go to see real change. With tons of viable parties, the bribing might go away.
Plan.
1. Today it is _currently_ a binary choice. Not choosing is not a good idea.
2. Pass an constitutional amendment replacing first pass the vote with some alternative that passes the condorcet criteria. This would instantly make third parties viable. Getting (2) is likely to be a very long process and difficult process. Both major parties have no interest in this.
3. An election may not create a condorcet winner. Voting again, perhaps after sending the worst ones off the island should help there, but some kind of compromise may be required at that point. No system will be perfect.
I'll add one exception to 1. If a candidate supports something that neither of the mainstream candidates do, that you feel so strongly about that it is acceptable for the worst candidate to win now if it advances a key issue like found in (2) then I'd say go third party, but by all means try to get the issue heard. For the 2, I'd argue that you first need to get the system working locally, before trying nationwide. Frankly I tend to think attempting to get the issue heard nationwide might be an exercise in futility. It needs to succeed in smaller venues first.
That being said, now might be a great election to bring it up. Just think of who might not be the republican nominee if it was in place this year. Trump won partly because he was different than the others. For that matter the democratic one might have changed as well.
At this point, what does it matter?
I mean, the whole point of the Benghazi damage control lies was that she did it because the attack HAPPENED THE WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION and some short term lies were necessary to prevent a severe October Surprise event. Yet nobody, even the opposition, stresses this time sensitive narrative in their analysis of the matter. Nobody discusses that the lies threw the re-election of the president.
Was it top level classified information? Remember, people died because of some of these leaks. Chelsea Manning goes to prison, but Chelsea (Clinton)'s mom gets a little scolding?
Sexual harassment, in the form of sexual acts with a low subordinate in the Oval Office?
I mean, wtf? Let's just cancel the whole feminist agenda for a little while, because he's cool and played the sax on TV.
Uh huh. Why don't you try getting a classified job (at a far lower level than HRC), send work information over Facebook, and then try the "aww, shucks, who could have known" line at the DOJ when they're threatening you with twenty years in prison for mishandling classified data. Bonus points if you do it in your best Goofy impression.
wow ./ has paid shillary's
and sometimes a conviction not enough to have one removed from elected office
Because if she's put in jail, Trump becomes president almost by default.
... well not Trump?
... quit putting these fucking morons up for election or we'll never have a choice of who is president.
It's sickening, she's going to become president and see no repercussions from this event because the alternative option is actually somehow worse.
Let's be fair... if you have to choose between two shit bags for president, wouldn't you prefer the shit bag who is at least
What scares the ever living shit out of me is that people actually want him to be president. I don't mean because they think Hillary is worse or because he is the current choice of his team. I mean there are people who hear what he says and thinks he makes sense.
People!!!! This guy is a male Sarah Palin. Before you know it, he's going to import fucking polar bears to New York City so he can stand and shoot them from his balcony too. Maybe he'll claim diplomatic expertise because with a really big telescope he can see Canada from his living room window.
So... while it kills me to say it... Hillary Shitbag Clinton should just be let in free and clear... just forget all this legal shit and let her in. She'll be there 8 years and the republicans will spend their time trying to find a way to top even Trump. Let's face it...
1) Palin - A woman who can barely speak... I'm not kidding, she makes sounds but no one on this planet has any f-ing idea what she's actually saying and... well neither does she.
2) Romney - On 31 separate accounts during his campaign he said "The first thing I'll do when I get into office is...". And frankly, it was never the same thing twice. The guy couldn't remember from hour to hour what the first thing he was going to do was. Maybe he's like really super amazing and can do 31 different first things simultaneously. Maybe he can use some quantum physics magic and be in 31 places at once. He was a blathering idiot... and the bitch of it is, when he has prepared speeches, he's bloody brilliant. He just really sucks as using his own brain... well except for thinking things like "Wouldn't my car look great between the grand piano and the couch?". Who the f-ing hell puts a frigging car elevator into his living room?!?!?! It's like standing on your porch drinking a Schlitz and and shooting bears then bragging on TV about it.
3) Trump... well... come on... I just don't even need to say anything about him. He does it all by himself.
For the love of all that is holy (like pizza)
P.S. - You don't actually have to vote for one of these two shit bags... you can vote for another shitbag like Bernie the sellout Sanders.
Uh huh. Why don't you try getting a classified job (at a far lower level than HRC), send work information over Facebook, and then try the "aww, shucks, who could have known" line at the DOJ when they're threatening you with twenty years in prison for mishandling classified data. Bonus points if you do it in your best Goofy impression.
Again, lots of hypothetical examples without any actual incidents.
I stole this Sig
Sexual harassment, in the form of sexual acts with a low subordinate in the Oval Office?
I mean, wtf? Let's just cancel the whole feminist agenda for a little while, because he's cool and played the sax on TV.
You do know that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are separate people right? I certainly don't excuse Bill's actions here, but you can't blame Hillary for not divorcing him. She had the right to make that choice.
For that matter, Hillary is certainly better for the "feminist agenda" than say Trump would be. With Trump we have the first marriage lasting 14 years, the second 7, and the third has lasted 11 so far. Hillary married bill in 75, while Trump married his first wife in 77, meaning that she has from all accounts been faithful for longer than all of Trump's marriages put together. (Bill obviously, has not.)
Trump's first wife was a model. Trump's second wife was an actress. The third wife was, guess, another model. One begins to see a pattern, but perhaps wife number 4 will be different... Either way, I can't see that promoting that image of women gaining power by marrying powerful men and being regularly replaced is helpful for the feminist agenda.
That's what I find to be the biggest farce - the Big Ebil Russians hacked the DNC email server in a matter of weeks to swing the election to Trump, yet they left Hillary's private email server alone for YEARS. Otherwise, it would mean Hillary was an incompetent fool, and we can't have that...
Riiiiiight... Can you come up with something believable next time?
For fuck's sake, how obtuse do you have to be to deny all of the examples that have popped up over the years? Google it, you lazy prick. Hell, you can't even claim you didn't know the speed limit was 30 when you were doing 50 and get away with it, but state secrets? "Oh, sure, your highness, free pass it is!" She's criminal or incompetent, pick one. In either case, she doesn't belong in a position of power.
I bet you're the first person to parrot the "ignorance is no excuse for the law" when it comes to some peon who's on trial.
Learn the English language and use of capitalization before blasting your bullshit hillary propaganda. How much does the Open Society foundation pay your worthless ass to post this damage-control garbage, anyways?
From the looks of it, karma is going to take care of the problem that the corrupt establishment refuses to. Her health concerns are real.
Your ignorance on the subject is not our problem.
So what you're telling us is that Hillary TOOK PICTURES of the most secret parts of one of our nuclear subs AND casually tossed them in a dumpster? Oh you're not, sorry.
Wrong. You're not a criminal until you're convicted of a crime--not quite the same thing.
If the crime hadn't been committed in the first place, there'd be no trial.
Lots of presidents should have been in jail, why weren't they? Seriously, she's doing nothing worse or better than any of the presidents in my lifetime. If we're going to jail her then we should jail quite a lot of people. The reason people are focusing on her is partisanship otherwise they'd notice how badly behaved their own heros are.
If only she had an Ollie North to take the fall...
PLENTY of people would like to see her prosecuted for her deliberate law breaking.
Unfortunately, they're likely the same people who would clap her in irons just because, with about as much compunction as a member of the Cheka.
When you're willing to admit that, then maybe you can attempt to address the general disinterest people have in your heedless accusations.
But you can't, since you don't even grasp the extent of the problem on your own end.
Because at the time she did this is was against State Department internal regulations, but not a criminal offense.
You only put people in jail for criminal offenses that have jail as punishment codified in the law, and even then jail is usually only one of many options available as punishment.
Short answer, Because if they put Hillary in Jail for this they would also have to put Colin Powell and Condolisa Rice in jail for doing the same thing. How come this has not been brought up by anyone? Because Colin Powell and Condolisa Rice are Republicans and due to that fact are exempt from consequences from Republican congressional witchunts. It is not fair, but it is what is happening, like it or not.
Because at the time she did this is was against State Department internal regulations, but not a criminal offense.
You only put people in jail for criminal offenses that have jail as punishment codified in the law, and even then jail is usually only one of many options available as punishment.
Unless you really don't like somebody.
Then even the smallest transgression is apparently worthy of jail time.
THIS!
The FBI already stated that they see no evidence Hilary did anything wrong, but that is not good enough for the idiot Republicans in Congress, so it would not surprise me if the Email "Scandal" keeps getting examined and re-examined until 2020, especially if Hillary gets elected. This is Whitewater 2.0 essentially and it says a lot more about the "Bash the Clintons" attitude of the Republican opposition than it says anything about Hillary. This is old news, that the Republicans hate the Clintons and will waste taxpayer dollars on the order of Billions to trash the Clintons. We have seen this shit before and until the American people turn around and make it clear that they want a government that works and stop voting in these idiotic Republican assholes for whom reality is "Negotiable" for the right price.. they will keep saying "oh Hillary sent classified emails to China, North Korea and to Russia and did it so much Sarah Pailin could see it from her house!" These Republicans know they are full of shit, but they don't want to admit it because then they would be admitting they are full of shit to everyone.. so they keep up this nonsensical shit using taxpayer dollars.
Hillary is not guilty of anything, it has been proven again and again.. but like angry toddlers, the republicans will not be satisfied until they get what they want. It is either Hillary or Trump and it is clear that Trump will end up causing WWIII.
You mean enough concussions and blood clots to deny? Seriously, that was her excuse.
Your ignorance
A sailor going and photographing classified sections of a submarine over a period of months. Basically looking like he was engaged in active espionage.
So no, not a comparable incident.
subject
Petraeus deliberately shared highly classified materials with his mistress and biographer.
Not a remotely comparable incident.
not our problem.
Oooh, "10 people were actually punished for similar or lesser offenses than what Mrs. Clinton got away with yesterday".
This should be good for a laugh.
1. "pleaded guilty in 2005 to illegally sneaking classified documents from the National Archives by stuffing papers in his suit. He later destroyed some of them in his office and lied about it.”
Nope, he was deliberately removed classified documents and they proved he lied about it.
2. "Peter Van Buren, a foreign service officer for Hillary’s State Department, was fired and his security clearance revoked for quoting a Wikileaks document AFTER publishing a book critical of Clinton. In fact, the Washington Post reported that one of his firing infractions was “showing ‘bad judgement’ by criticizing Clinton and then-Rep. Michele Bachmann on his blog.”
Sounds more like someone being punished for writing a book critical of their employer.
3. Was a CIA director storing classified info at home. This is the most comparable though the CIA director was dealing with more sensitive information, should have been more aware than Hillary, and it sounds like he knew he had mishandled classified intel.
So a little worse than Hillary though roughly comparable. He also got pardoned by Bill Clinton before he even finished the plea deal. So that actually kinda sets a no jail-time incident.
4. “A Navy intelligence specialist admitted Thursday that he smuggled classified documents out of Fort Bragg in folders and his pants pockets, then sold them for $11,500 to a man he believed was a Chinese agent.”
Wow, #4 and they're already claiming a guy trying to sell classified intelligence to the Chinese was a lesser offence than Hillary?
I seriously checked all of the examples and even read the links on a few that looked promising.
This one was actually hilarious:
Lab Tech Steals Data from Nuclear Facility. Jessica Lynn Quintana, a former worker at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, pleaded guilty in federal court to “knowingly removing classified information from the national security research laboratory, after she took home sensitive documents and data from the lab last year.”
Talk about misrepresenting the facts. She was charged because she was running a meth lab!!
Still I learned something, don't believe a damn thing you read on "The Political Insider".
I stole this Sig
For fuck's sake, how obtuse do you have to be to deny all of the examples that have popped up over the years? Google it, you lazy prick.
I've heard the same argument for the Bigfoot.
There's so many stories! So much evidence!
Yet weirdly enough no one can ever find a single example that holds up to scrutiny.
I stole this Sig
If only the paid shills could get their facts straight.
The FBI has said just the opposite, repeatedly, they've simply hidden behind the "we didn't find any intent" smokescreen (intent is not required for several of the statutes she violated).
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/02/...
Really? Read that, she is either lying or completely incompetent...
This again? Where were you when this happened before to others? It was a systemic problem that resulted in Rice, Powell and a pile of others being part of the same sort of fuckup only in their cases the classified emails left the building and ended up on commercial mail servers - whoops!
If you want to do something other than split hairs take a look at the Clinton foundation, Pfizers's dealings with them especially.
"there is constant compliance crap that *all employees* have to do" - FTFY
The rules for government employees and contractors are different from the rules for elected officials and appointees. If an employee sexually harasses someone, there are consequences, including being put into a new job, training, and the threat of firing. If an elected official or appointee sexually harasses someone, they can't be fired because they weren't actually hired. http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2012/dec/02/sexual-harassment-complaints-against/94163/ - if an elected official harasses someone, there's no real process beyond the victim getting a new job that isn't in proximity to the harasser, getting tired of the process not working and going public, and the harasser hopefully eventually resigning or losing an election.
Employees get their clearance when they're hired, and if they don't get the clearance, they're fired because they can't do the job. Elected and appointed officials get their clearance as part of the job, regardless of whether the investigating agencies would normally have given them a clearance or not. I have no idea whether they have the same rules as we do or not, but you can't generalize from an experience as an employee and assume the same rules apply to elected or appointed officials.
I was in the Army, started in the Infantry and moved to Military Intelligence for a short time. As with all soldiers, I filled out a form and got a "Confidential" clearance when I enlisted. As with all officers, I filled out another form when I was commissioned and got a Secret some months later. And when I moved to MI, I filled out another form for a Top Secret.
At no time was I ever briefed. For my TS, I was already out of the Army by the time it was granted and all I got was a letter in the mail telling me that I was granted one despite my significant foreign contacts (I picked up my wife on an overseas tour). I think there were some nasty notes on the forms I filled out right above the signature block, but I don't remember if I read them.
Now, if the government is willing to be so slack with a peon like me, I'm guessing they'll be just as lazy with the higher ups.
But remember she took the job just after Bush destroyed country and burned the government to the ground. She was supposed to get training, and signed the paperwork that she did, but she never actually got it. This is Bush's fault.
As someone who administered a Blackberry server back when this would have been running I can tell you that BES was an absolute pig. The relentless MAPI requests would slow a server down to a crawl. Why do you thing BES switched to Active Sync? This would be one of the reasons.
A Commodore 64 is one email with a picture attachment from choking and dying. Don't fool yourself.
Not necessarily. Trial happen if the authorities believe they can convince a jury a crime has been committed, actual crime is not necessary.
The entire US governments runs on "taking money ... while granting favors"
You're confusing campaign funding with putting millions of dollars directly in the Clinton family pockets, making them personally wealthy.
No, it's a charity, the books get audited. They don't draw a salary, the money gets spent on causes they feel it should be spent on. Not a cent to campaign funds or their own bank accounts.
Their personal wealth is because - amazing as it may sound - organizations are willing to spend big bucks for the prestige of a former President giving a speech at their events.
hmmm.... I have been running my own properly configured home based mail server for years and the load is negligible....
and I'm sure the volume of email you receive at home every day is on par with Clinton's through the State Department (at home). /rolls_eyes
unless your name is Clinton.
Hillary Clinton contacted Colin Powell to ask him about his use of a Blackberry while in the same role. According to a Federal Bureau of Investigations memorandum published today (PDF), Powell warned Clinton that if it became public that she was using a Blackberry to "do business," her e-mails would be treated as "official" record and be subject to the law. "Be very careful," Powell said according to the FBI. "I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data."
So Hillary remembers every word of a brief conversation she had with Powell eight years ago, but she can't remember with the "C" in Classified stands for? Sure.
The scary part is that she didn't seem to understand the differences between handling classified data and unclassified data. Almost anyone else in government who mishandled classified data similarly would be a guest of a federal correctional facility for many years.
Separate from what she did, the classification system is broke in many ways. Stuff gets over classified, classified differently in different agencies, and get classified after the fact. I can see someone not realizing something should be classified. Aggregate unclassified data can become classified. Even the First Law of Thermodynamics is Confidential or at least was a while ago in parts of the Navy.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
"But the Power Mac was having difficulty handling the additional load created by Blackberry usage from Secretary Clinton and her staff, so a decision was made quickly to upgrade the server hardware. "
Wasn't the official story that Huma was the only member of her staff to have an account on the mail server?
Source: CNN
Then again, who are you going to believe, Powell or Clinton?
Ken
Except, of course, she isn't actually President, just a candidate for the office...
Ken
Here's a list of Obama's "Top Priorities" from 2010 - just two short years into his Presidency - a current list would be quite longer...
Just sayin'
Ken
Ken
It would be, but the FBI does not believe she lied to them. Comey said exactly that during his House testimony.
Exact same arguments we get for AGW. So much evidence!
hmmm.... That's because she clearly is above the law.
You say that as if the entire US government shouldn't be in jail.
That would require changing laws. The people responsible for the current situation are also the beneficiaries and the ones that have the power to change things. There are too many stupid people in this country for enough of them to ever see a problem with this.
In the morning fellow Gitmo citizen!
So, how much is Soros paying you to shill for Hillary?
They don't draw a salary, the money gets spent on causes they feel it should be spent on.
They spend (at most) 10% of the foundations huge cash flow on actual charities/causes. The rest is all "administrative" fees and costs, including large salaries for cronies who "consult" with the foundation, and a huge parade of paid-for amenities for the the foundation's star attractions: Bill, Hillary, and their daughter. Do you really think that one dollar out of ten spent on "causes" is the sign of a proper charitable foundation? It means they are either corrupt, or incredibly incompetent - just like everything else they run.
Their personal wealth is because - amazing as it may sound - organizations are willing to spend big bucks for the prestige of a former President giving a speech at their events.
No, they were willing to spend big bucks because it gets them access to the Secretary of State, where they had other business pending. Do you REALLY think that some brokerage in NY is handing Hillary Clinton hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time for a closed-door, in-house-only appearance lasting under 30 minutes, with everyone involved signing non disclosure agreements so that the press can never learn what it was she said that was worth making her rich? Are you even listening to yourself?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Exact same arguments we get for AGW. So much evidence!
It's actually a cool way to look at it because it doesn't apply to AGW.
"Bigfoot proponent: I have a bigfoot footpint here!
Scientists: Nope, that's a bear print.
Bigfoot proponent: Well then I have a bigfoot hair!
Scientist: Nope, still a bear.
Bigfoot proponent: I have a video of a bigfoot!
Scientist: Nope, we can see it's a guy in a suit.
"
But see how it applies to AGW
"Skeptic: AGW doesn't exist because study A is wrong.
Scientists: Yeah, it does have shortcomings, study B is a much better look at that topic.
Skeptic: But study C is wrong!
Scientist: That was known for a while, that's why study D was done."
Basically skeptics find individual bad studies, about which they may or may not be correct, but they're always trying to cherry pick the one bad study or line of evidence, instead of attacking the best evidence. The existence of an individual bad study means nothing, it would be like disproving the existence of women by bringing in a bunch of drag queens.
The way to disprove AGW is to take the best studies and theories that everyone relies on an disprove those, and then it would fall apart like the Bigfoot.
I stole this Sig
this is was against State Department internal regulations, but not a criminal offense.
I disagree. They're investigating a possible crime.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
So, how much is Soros paying you to shill for Hillary?
Not a damn dime.
I just get really pissed off when everyone buys into a bullshit narrative and I refuse to let the bullshit artists dominate the conversation.
Seriously, the paranoia over paid shills to comment on message boards is kinda stupid anyway. The last thing Soros or any political actor would want is some idiot they were paying $10/hr to post on a /. message board to say something outrageous and have it traced back to them.
And even if they did pay a few there's already hundreds of thousands of people on both sides willing to engage in the debate. It would be like trying to cause a flood by dumping a pot of water in a the river, flood or no flood you didn't do squat.
Even Russia with it's actual state sponsored legion of internet posters... I'm pretty skeptical I've ever directly engaged with one of them. There are so many much more mundane explanations for the stupid things people write.
I stole this Sig
She is in the pocket of Apple, which has a connection to apples, which has a connection to Adam and Eve's sin... I knew it!
So, fuck the country and vote for Trump is the right answer now, right?
"Okay, Trump studied political science and law when?"
Most presidents, including people like Dwight Eisenhower and Harry Truman studied neither. PolySci is what the worst wonks and politicians study to learn how to manipulate the public. As for law degrees: Lawyers need them, but everybody else, including presidents HIRE lawyers. Incidentally: Richard Nixon studies PolySci and got a law degree.
"He won an election when?"
Every politician has to win a first election sometime. Winning an election gets you into office but is itself not a qualification for anything else. If Trump wins, he will have won the only election he ever needed to win and will meet this criteria. Note: Hillary Clinton never actually had to win an election - the DNC kept a totally "safe" non-competitive senate seat open for JFK Jr and after he died it was handed to Hillary. If they had handed the seat to a cucumber it would have "won" that election. Hillary's "win" was so automatic it was evidence of nothing.
"He held public office where?"
Not a requirement. He is a natural citizen and over the age of 35. As soon as he would be elected he would meet this criteria.
"He held a cabinet post under which president?"
Well, you have just declared that JFK, George Washington, Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barack Obama, among others, were all unqualified.
Hillary, on the other hand, is the least qualified in history. She could not pass the Washington DC bar exam, got kicked off the Watergate committee for hiding documents, had a draft indictment filed against her in the 1990s while First Lady, for DOCUMENT HIDING, Has now been exposed by the FBI for, among other things, hiding documents. She has been referred to the FBI for perjury in her congressional testimony. She's been married to a governor (not a qualification for anything), married to a president (not a qualification for anything), given a senate seat where she wrote not a single law, given the Secretary of State job where she got an ambassador killed, lit the middle east on fire, screwed up relations with Russia, and apparently was selling her services to enrich her family while lying her ass off. Quite the resume'. She's not even qualified to teach pre-schoolers. She is the only candidate I can recall who has ever run for office after having already been declared a serial liar by the FBI, and who we now know escaped prosecution in part by claiming brain damage (read the documents dumped on Friday by the FBI).
It took years in office to turn Nixon into [evil]Nixon.... Hillary is already corrupt-and-evil Nixon. Would YOU elect the Nixon of 1974? That's what Hillary is today - already proven to be completely evil and corrupt WITH PUBLIC AUTHORITY AND POWER. Oh, and the law she broke and which FBI director Comey chose not to prosecute her for, bans a person convicted from ever again holding public office FOR GOOD REASON, because such a person should never again be trusted with the power of the public.
"I don't care if you agree with every spittle that ever emerged from the Donald's mouth, the presidency is NOT an entry-level job."
On the contrary: Obama has proved that it clearly IS an entry-level job that is suitable for any old pot-puffing (read his autobiography), coke-snorting (read his autobiography), community organizer (aka rabble-rouser) whose most basic education credentials are unknown (unlike all other presidents, Obama's are sealed - we have no idea of his classes, professors, grades, or even evidence that he graduated).
Neither Rice nor Powell did "the same thing". They both had private e-mail ACCOUNTS which they used for UNCLASSIFIED e-mails at a time when the State Department did not yet have its own systems for this. By the time Hillary was SecState, the department DID have the proper setup and what Hillary did was contrary to policy.
Neither Rice nor Powell had a secret private server with private administration hidden from oversight by executive branch employees.
Neither Rice nor Powell used their private accounts for classified matters. Hillary DID use hers improperly for classified info.
Neither Rice nor Powell used a server to keep all their government work product (which belongs to the people) out of reach from the congress, the courts, and FOIA requests filed by citizens with the State Department.
Neither Rice nor Powell had people without security clearances go through all their e-mails choosing which to delete, which to copy, etc before then destroying the server and wiping its drives while knowing full-well that the FBI, several courts, and the Congress were all seeking the documents (Hillary's actions would have made Nixon blush)
They spend (at most) 10% of the foundations huge cash flow on actual charities/causes. The rest is all "administrative" fees and costs, including large salaries for cronies who "consult" with the foundation, and a huge parade of paid-for amenities for the the foundation's star attractions: Bill, Hillary, and their daughter. Do you really think that one dollar out of ten spent on "causes" is the sign of a proper charitable foundation? It means they are either corrupt, or incredibly incompetent - just like everything else they run.
No, you've been watching too much Fox News and/or Breitbart. They give grants of about 10% to other charities, for those charities to use or distribute. Most of the rest they spend on their own charity initiatives - ranging from Women's Health to training farmers in Africa to a wide variety or good causes. The actual administrative expenses are around 11%, which is quite good for charity organizations.
No, they were willing to spend big bucks because it gets them access to the Secretary of State, where they had other business pending. Do you REALLY think that some brokerage in NY is handing Hillary Clinton hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time for a closed-door, in-house-only appearance lasting under 30 minutes, with everyone involved signing non disclosure agreements so that the press can never learn what it was she said that was worth making her rich? Are you even listening to yourself?
So, how do you explain the wealth that they accumulated before Hillary was SoS? They made over $90 million from 2000 to 2006 in book and speech income, did that income source magically become "dirty" when she joined the Obama administration?
I find your example lacking in specifics - which firm? What date? Was she in office at the time? Vague accusations indicate an unreliable source. And if the press could never learn about it, how do you know so "much" (actually very little) about it?
They spend (at most) 10% of the foundations huge cash flow on actual charities/causes. The rest is all "administrative" fees and costs, including large salaries for cronies who "consult" with the foundation, and a huge parade of paid-for amenities for the the foundation's star attractions: Bill, Hillary, and their daughter. Do you really think that one dollar out of ten spent on "causes" is the sign of a proper charitable foundation? It means they are either corrupt, or incredibly incompetent - just like everything else they run.
Do you think your numbers are accurate? Or perhaps you can explain why other examinations don't agree with your conclusions. Surely you can show your own numbers are more valid than independent examinations. If not, it means you are either corrupt, or incredibly incompetent.
The real truth is, you have zero credibility when it comes to talking about the Clintons. And it's your own fault. You've been too hysterical and partisan, you could witness an actual homicide, and the jury would laugh when you took the stand.
No, they were willing to spend big bucks because it gets them access to the Secretary of State, where they had other business pending. Do you REALLY think that some brokerage in NY is handing Hillary Clinton hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time for a closed-door, in-house-only appearance lasting under 30 minutes, with everyone involved signing non disclosure agreements so that the press can never learn what it was she said that was worth making her rich? Are you even listening to yourself?
Hey, if you want to lock up former Presidents, stop handing out pardons.
Propose a law that the President and their spouse has to live on a stipend, in a confined chamber, where they pray for America, then I'll believe you give a crap.
Yeah, I can believe that. Here's an anecdote to support it
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a Mac Pro 12-core w/12 Gigs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Word will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Safari is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 2.4 Ghz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.
Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
Clinton is a square shooter. Clinton 2016!
Because Alexander Hamilton never intended politicians to be prosecuted for their crimes. That's why he set up a different system of justice for politicians than for the rest of us.
Yeah, that's why I've been pointing out that guns are pretty ineffective combat weapons and that people who believe in their armament rights (I've stopped referring to the amendments when talking about rights that the amendments are merely a sham at protecting) should insist on tanks and planes. I also point out the Shays and Whiskey Rebellions and refer to them as the good guys. I also make people aware of Thomas Hobbes and Alexander Hamilton and refer to them as villains and darlings of the university and politics circles.
I don't really disagree with your overall conclusions, but Benghazi happened on September 11th. US federal elections are the first Tuesday after November 1st - almost two months later.
I think Hillary was treated fairly by the FBI director. The problem is we should all be treated like this, with due process. Instead the way it works for us normal people is the states attorney charges us will a million trumped up things as a way to get leverage over us to plea bargain.
She lied repeatedly when she said that no classified information was sent via her personal email server.
For anybody but a Clinton, it would be...
It became a criminal offense when she started trading classified documents via her private email systems. Of course just having the server for private use is perfectly legal.
When one gains access to a head-of-states 'private' communications, one does not waste that opportunity for lulz on 4chan. At least until after they leave office, which is exactly what happened.
Because at the time she did this is was against State Department internal regulations, but not a criminal offense.
You only put people in jail for criminal offenses that have jail as punishment codified in the law, and even then jail is usually only one of many options available as punishment.
You are completely WRONG! Mishandling of classified documents IS! codified in law and punishable by 10 years in jail and up to a $10,000 fine. Also stripping the security headers from classified documents IS ALSO codified in law and also punishable by the same time and fines. I know I work in security and I remember what was said in the Security Awareness Training classes that I took and she was also required to that but with her lying ways does the Ollie North thing of "Sorry I don't recall" In the training it is very clear THESE ARE CRIMES AGAINST THE STATE.
So I ask you PLEASE quit spreading lies.
Aren't laws for everyone? I know for a fact if I do these things at work I GO TO JAIL. So why not her?
Oh if you don't believe these are criminal acts ask Ed Snownden they sure what to hang him for mis handling classified information.
Actually, no, the server broke the federal records retention laws as well. Mostly because she did not turn over the records, and in fact tried to wipe a bunch of records that the FBI was able to retrieve.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
no lies?
do you not recall the numerous instances where she claimed that the server didn't even exist and there were no emails outside of official channels?
the very existence of the server and existence of emails is in direct contradiction to her earliest statements on the issue.
Only after its existence was proven without a shadow of a doubt did the defense shift the argument to her knowledge of specifics.
not knowing details vs explicit claims it doesn't exist at all are not the same
Basic horseshit. Even the DOJ that's prosecuting him agrees he had no intent to distribute the images from his cell phone. You know, the same DOJ that was threatening Aaron Schwartz with 35 years in prison for unauthorized network access.
Damn straight it's not a comparable incident - Hillary had thousands and thousands of emails with classified information on them, in an unauthorized, insecure private email server. You're comparing an anthill (sailor) to Mt. McKinley parked on top Mt. Everest (HRC). And also destroyed evidence without authorization, something that Sandy Berger went to prison for. This goes beyond cognitive dissonance to willful dumbfuckery.
You have to either have a powerful level of narcotics in your system, or a powerful level of stupid, to say a sailor should face prosecution for deciding to take pictures on his personal phone, which is not accessible to the entire internet, and hand waive away a private email server, with exponentially more secretive information yet public-facing, with a straight face. Would it make any difference if that sailor said "but but but I also used that phone to dictate mission reports!" - of course not. So how the hell can anyone rationalize another state worker putting far more amounts of far more secretive information at far greater risk?
It's all comparable, because the prosecution is all comparable: mishandling classified information. Just ask Sandy Berger, and any whisteblower persecuted by the Obama administration. Intent does not matter, only the action matters.
Berger wasn't authorized to carry those materials out of the National Archives nor destroy them - and Hillary wasn't authorized to use a private email server for far far FAR more information than Berger was ever accused of removing, nor destroying the evidence (deleting emails).
Willful.
Dumb.
Fuck.
Er.
Eee.
Was she or was she not charged with mishandling classified information? No amount of hand waiving is going to change the fact that Hillary's dumb ass would be in prison if she were anyone other than Hillary.
Hillary had thousands and thousands of emails with classified information on them
You mean 113? Out of tens of thousands?
an unauthorized, insecure private email server.
As opposed to an unauthorized, insecure state department email server?
The private server is a complete red herring, the confidential emails weren't supposed to go over the standard state dept email either. And she was definitely not the only one to have sent or received confidential email on an unauthorized account.
And also destroyed evidence without authorization, something that Sandy Berger went to prison for.
He stuffed the docs into his pants, it's pretty obvious he knew he was violating the law.
Intent does not matter, only the action matters.
Yeah, why let one of the basic factors in criminal law influence your analysis?
You miss the point. Once they have one legitimate charge then they hit you with every other possible charge they can.
I stole this Sig
Actually, what she did was illegal. See here for some details.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.