IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags e-mail scandals , Eric Hothem , hillary clinton , politics scandals

Closed Thread
Old 23rd September 2015, 04:00 PM   #3401
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Sorry, duplicate post
that would describe about 98% of them
__________________
For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 04:40 PM   #3402
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,482
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
well back to business....

In March, a House committee asked Mrs. Clinton to give the server to a third party to determine whether she had turned over all of the work-related emails.

Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, David E. Kendall, said in response to the request that there was no reason to hand over the server because there was nothing on it.

So, maybe someone needs to take a look at David Kendall too? Keep in mind that the server had top secret data on it and was sitting in an data storage center in New Jersey.

Who else had access to that server, Hillary.
Riiiight. Like she should cooperate with the whims of the witch hunters.

Darrell Issa is obsessed with Clinton and Benghazi. He has such poor credibility his own party took him off the Oversight Committee.

California's Darrell Issa loses power along with House oversight committee post

The Benghazi investigation is a farce and an embarrassment to the GOP.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 04:47 PM   #3403
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,749
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
They have since ended their inquiry. The FBI continues to look for any copies of confidential material that might be loose. That doesn't make a criminal investigation, that makes a security sweep.

It's only the Clinton haters that want it to be criminal.


Oh, by the way, speaking of goalpost moving, which is it, criminal use of a private email server, or criminal misconduct handling government secrets?
Receiving, storing, and sending classified information on a non-classified server (email or otherwise) is a crime when you have a security clearance. Which means that the FBI looking for those loose documents is a criminal investigation when it comes to who owned, used and controlled the server.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 04:55 PM   #3404
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Receiving, storing, and sending classified information on a non-classified server (email or otherwise) is a crime when you have a security clearance. Which means that the FBI looking for those loose documents is a criminal investigation when it comes to who owned, used and controlled the server.
Of course it is, that's why you quoted the FBI.
__________________
For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 04:56 PM   #3405
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Riiiight. Like she should cooperate with the whims of the witch hunters.

Darrell Issa is obsessed with Clinton and Benghazi. He has such poor credibility his own party took him off the Oversight Committee.

California's Darrell Issa loses power along with House oversight committee post

The Benghazi investigation is a farce and an embarrassment to the GOP.
My post had nothing to do with Darrell Issa, and he is not and has never been on the select committee.

Your post had nothing to do with my post.

Witch hunters. Clinton haters. Those aren't arguments at all.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 05:09 PM   #3406
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,436
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
...

The Benghazi investigation is a farce and an embarrassment to the GOP.
Yes, it was, but it served their purposes, it fired up a percentage of the base and in net probably won a few more moderates than they lost with their shenanigans. They got as much as they could have hoped for.

Then came Clinton and her email fiasco. All of a sudden they had a real issue with real malfeasance they could point to. Clinton has mishandled this at every step of the way and even if the claim that this scandal is all about appearance was true (obviously I don't agree with that) Clinton's missteps in handling the scandal have contributed to an overall impression of incompetence. What the heck was this woman thinking? Even after the egregiously bad idea to use a private server there were some outs. Clinton had warnings from the state department that there was something here she needed to do something about and she did nothing except perhaps make incredibly bad jokes. Was her staff afraid to confront her with bad news?

This scandal has not only hurt Clinton directly, it has worked to get old long gone Clinton scandals some new air time. Who the hell remembered Eric Hothem and the furniture scandal? Not me for sure, but now I've been reminded of it. Who in the electorate had heard about Clinton and the possibility of conflict of interests between her foundation and her SoS job. I had barely heard of that and now it has new life as a partial driver for the actions Clinton took with regard to her email server. The Benghazi scandal was winding down. Without new facts there just wasn't anything left to exploit and now Clinton is seen as hiding potentially relevant input to the congress.

Even Clinton's little kerfuffles with her secret service agents have gotten more air time.

This is a friggin mess and for those of us who do not want to see one of the Republican front runners become president it is hard to imagine what Clinton could have done to make that any more likely than what she has done here.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 05:16 PM   #3407
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,482
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Receiving, storing, and sending classified information on a non-classified server (email or otherwise) is a crime when you have a security clearance. Which means that the FBI looking for those loose documents is a criminal investigation when it comes to who owned, used and controlled the server.
No, it can be criminal. Applying 'criminal' to this situation is wishful thinking.

WA Times re Colin Powell
Quote:
“He was not aware of any restrictions nor does he recall being made aware of any over the four years he served at State,” an aide for Mr. Powell said in a statement, Politico reported.

“He sent emails to his staff generally via their State Department email addresses. These emails should be on the State Department computers. He might have occasionally used personal email addresses, ...
The Times reported that before the regulations went into effect, Mr. Powell also “used personal email to communicate with American officials and ambassadors and foreign leaders.”
Media Matters
Quote:
Appearing on ABCs This Week on Sunday, Powell was asked how he responded to the State Department request last year that all former secretaries hand over emails from their time in office. Powell confirmed that he had used private email while secretary but that he didn't hand over any emails to the State Department because his private emails were all gone.

"I don't have any to turn over," he explained. "I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files." Powell's revelation is important because it puts into perspective the email protocol of a former secretary of state. By his own account, Powell's emails, unlike Clinton's, include his regular communications with foreign dignitaries. What was he emailing them in the lead-up to the war in Iraq? We'll never know.
Big Story
Quote:
Such slippage of classified information into regular email is "very common, actually," said Leslie McAdoo, a lawyer who frequently represents government officials and contractors in disputes over security clearances and classified information.

What makes Clinton's case different is that she exclusively sent and received emails through a home server in lieu of the State Department's unclassified email system. Neither would have been secure from hackers or foreign intelligence agencies, so it would be equally problematic whether classified information was carried over the government system or a private server, experts say.
Ironically Clinton's communications wouldn't have been more secure with a .gov address:
Quote:
... the State Department's unclassified email system has been penetrated by hackers believed linked to Russian intelligence.
Tempest in a tea pot, for sure.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 05:24 PM   #3408
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,482
As long as there is so much partisan posts in the thread anyway, here's an excellent op ed from today:
Clinton Emails My ASS–Condi Rice, Colin Powell, GWB All Used Private Servers !!
Quote:
Hypocrisy has always been a Republican strong suit, so the current iteration regarding Hillary Clinton’s email server is by no mean a surprise. Hyperventilating Republicans rush to the cameras claiming they’ve found the smoking gun proving their political opponents aren’t just wrong, but that they’re criminals. Traffic hungry reporters take “off the record” spin and run with it, publishing dramatic (and click-driving) stories predicting perp walks any day. Then months later, when the facts actually come out, there is far less to the story than meets the eye.
Supposedly Rice rarely used email, she was apparently Inter-tubes challenged.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 23rd September 2015 at 05:28 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 05:49 PM   #3409
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
As long as there is so much partisan posts in the thread anyway, here's an excellent op ed from today:
Clinton Emails My ASS–Condi Rice, Colin Powell, GWB All Used Private Servers !!

Supposedly Rice rarely used email, she was apparently Inter-tubes challenged.
you mean partisan posts quoting the Washington Post and CBS?

Liberal beef! Solid stuff there. And I thought your arguments reached their nadir when you posted "Clinton haters" but it seems you got a shovel and determined to keep on digging....
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 05:59 PM   #3410
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
No, it can be criminal. Applying 'criminal' to this situation is wishful thinking.

WA Times re Colin Powell


Media Matters


Big Story

Ironically Clinton's communications wouldn't have been more secure with a .gov address:

Tempest in a tea pot, for sure.
Or we can throw Colin Powell in the prison cell next to hillary....

tu quoque arguments SUUCCCKKKKK...
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 06:15 PM   #3411
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,276
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
No, the system was supposed to automatically archive all emails.
evidence required, especially since the article in question states:
The State Department also realized it was not automatically preserving internal communications, evidence of which has also been presented earlier in the thread.

IOW, you just pulled that ******** about a glitch out of your ass.

Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Are you claiming that they were intentionally withholding documents from government archives in violation of the law? I'll go with that if you'd like...
Nice strawman. Evasion noted.

Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Bwahahahahaha! She preserved them by deleting them from her server and giving them up only when pressured by the top law enforcement agency in the country.
But she preserved them, unlike the state dept. Thanks for playing.
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 06:27 PM   #3412
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
evidence required, especially since the article in question states:
The State Department also realized it was not automatically preserving internal communications, evidence of which has also been presented earlier in the thread.

IOW, you just pulled that ******** about a glitch out of your ass.



Nice strawman. Evasion noted.



But she preserved them, unlike the state dept. Thanks for playing.
you do know that Hillary claimed that she copied people to ensure that they were collected, and she was in CHARGE of the department that **** the bed.

liar and incompetent, she's ready....
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 07:17 PM   #3413
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
evidence required, especially since the article in question states:
The State Department also realized it was not automatically preserving internal communications, evidence of which has also been presented earlier in the thread.

IOW, you just pulled that ******** about a glitch out of your ass.
If they "realized it was not automatically preserving" them, isn't it implied that it was supposed to be automatically preserving them? And therefore there was a glitch?


Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
Nice strawman. Evasion noted.
That word... I don't think it means what you think it means.

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
But she preserved them, unlike the state dept. Thanks for playing.
She preserved them by deleting them?
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 07:20 PM   #3414
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,482
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Or we can throw Colin Powell in the prison cell next to hillary....

tu quoque arguments SUUCCCKKKKK...
A tu quoque would have been them both doing something wrong. No one's saying Powell did anything wrong.

You should think about that.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 07:29 PM   #3415
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
A tu quoque would have been them both doing something wrong. No one's saying Powell did anything wrong.

You should think about that.
uh, no. What people are or are not saying about Powell tells us nothing about whether what Hillary did is wrong.

That is why it is a fallacy and why your post was wrong.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 06:11 AM   #3416
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,749
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
No, it can be criminal. Applying 'criminal' to this situation is wishful thinking.

WA Times re Colin Powell


Media Matters


Big Story

Ironically Clinton's communications wouldn't have been more secure with a .gov address:

Tempest in a tea pot, for sure.
Two problems, the first is that nothing you've posted deals with the statement about securing classified documents on a server.

The second is that the information she received was never meant to be on the .gov email address either.

We also don't know if she was ever hacked. It's like saying you've never had a virus because you've never run a virus scan. We don't know if she was ever hacked because there are no security logs to verify the claim.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 06:39 AM   #3417
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,276
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
If they "realized it was not automatically preserving" them, isn't it implied that it was supposed to be automatically preserving them? And therefore there was a glitch?
No, that's just your assumption.

'They' weren't supposed to be archiving emails automatically, individuals were supposed to - as has been covered earlier in the thread already.

Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
That word... I don't think it means what you think it means.
When you start with "Are you claiming that..." it's a good indicator you aren't going to be arguing against what I actually said.

Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
She preserved them by deleting them?
You got a word wrong - she printed them first, so she preserved them bybefore deleting them.
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 06:46 AM   #3418
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,276
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Two problems, the first is that nothing you've posted deals with the statement about securing classified documents on a server.

The second is that the information she received was never meant to be on the .gov email address either.

We also don't know if she was ever hacked. It's like saying you've never had a virus because you've never run a virus scan. We don't know if she was ever hacked because there are no security logs to verify the claim.
I appreciate that from a "common sense" broad sort of view, there are potential problems with clintons server and classified documents. But I think your posts are to broad, and don't cover the nuance of the situation. Neither the legal nuances, nor the political ones.

As far as security logs, being hacked, etc. We don't have any of that information to make informed statements about what occurred or didn't occur, what exists or doesn't exist.

And of course, no one is ever going to prove she wasn't hacked, right ? But it would be silly to ask someone to prove a negative, wouldn't it ?
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 07:02 AM   #3419
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,276
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
<>
On a different subject, no one replied to my question about whether Eric Hoteham has been formally identified. I understand that there was speculation about who he was based on a similarity to the name of a Clinton confidant, but that story seems strange. He misspelled his own name? He was trying to hide behind a pseudonym that was childishly close to his own name?
It never moved beyond speculation that it was him, as far as I know/can tell.

I have not seen any explanation of why that name was used.


Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
What was going on in Clinton land when she and some subset of her advisers decided that setting up her own private email server where she would mix her private business emails, her SoS emails and her personal emails was a good idea?

Did no one advance the idea that the security of the SoS email server was a big deal and that there might be some security issues with a home brew server? Did no one advance the notion that when Clinton commingled all of her emails that complying with archiving regulations was going to be difficult? Did nobody advance the legal argument that discovery actions aimed at one type of communications could lead to discovery of other types of communications that could cause embarrassment or even legal problems for Clinton?
Perhaps they concluded that the SoS's emails were unclassified, so they really weren't a big deal.
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 07:26 AM   #3420
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
I appreciate that from a "common sense" broad sort of view, there are potential problems with clintons server and classified documents. But I think your posts are to broad, and don't cover the nuance of the situation. Neither the legal nuances, nor the political ones.

As far as security logs, being hacked, etc. We don't have any of that information to make informed statements about what occurred or didn't occur, what exists or doesn't exist.

And of course, no one is ever going to prove she wasn't hacked, right ? But it would be silly to ask someone to prove a negative, wouldn't it ?
Oh man! You are so close to a breakthrough.

No it would not be silly to ask Hillary to prove she wasn't hacked, because basic damage controls dictate treating an uncontrolled server as compromised unless shown otherwise. Further, she had exclusive control over the server and we know she took steps to modify/delete the data on it.

Sorry if you don't think that is "fair" but Hillary could have avoided this whole situation if she had just decided not to indulge her rank paranoia, and put her selfish interests ahead of the Nation.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 08:59 AM   #3421
kmortis
Biomechanoid
Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
 
kmortis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Texas (aka SOMD)
Posts: 31,220
Mod InfoThis thread has gotten too long, please use the continuation thread, here.
Posted By:kmortis
__________________
-Aberhaten did it
- "Which gives us an answer to our question. What’s the worst thing that can happen in a pressure cooker?" Randall Munroe
-Director of Independent Determining Inquisitor Of Crazy Yapping
- Aberhaten's Apothegm™ - An Internet law that states that optimism is indistinguishable from sarcasm
kmortis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 08:59 AM   #3422
kmortis
Biomechanoid
Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
 
kmortis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Texas (aka SOMD)
Posts: 31,220
Mod InfoThis thread has gotten too long, please use the continuation thread, here.
Posted By:kmortis
__________________
-Aberhaten did it
- "Which gives us an answer to our question. What’s the worst thing that can happen in a pressure cooker?" Randall Munroe
-Director of Independent Determining Inquisitor Of Crazy Yapping
- Aberhaten's Apothegm™ - An Internet law that states that optimism is indistinguishable from sarcasm
kmortis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:20 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.