ISF Logo   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 2016 elections , Clinton controversies , hillary clinton , James Comey , presidential candidates

Reply
Old 10th June 2016, 01:20 PM   #81
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,511
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
As a Hillary supporter, maybe you can tell us what the latest euphemism is for what the FBI is doing. Security review? Investigation? Email retrieval? Criminal investigation?
The FBI is expected to interview Clinton this summer about the scandal. Law-enforcement officials told the Journal they don’t think criminal charges will be filed against her after the investigation.
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 01:24 PM   #82
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,115
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
As a Hillary supporter, maybe you can tell us what the latest euphemism is for what the FBI is doing. Security review? Investigation? Email retrieval? Criminal investigation?
lolz, the Shillaries really went for that line in the article that several law enforcement officials don't expect her to be indicted.

Heck of an Endorsement!

Hillary 2016, Loves the **** out of Drones, loathes transparency, thinks she is above the law and Not Indicted Yet!
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 01:27 PM   #83
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
If you knew there was a hacking attempt on your email, you wouldn't change the password?
No.

This seems rather irrelevant to any of the information at hand, though.
LOL. Is your password ABC123!?
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 01:29 PM   #84
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,561
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
lolz, the Shillaries really went for that line in the article that several law enforcement officials don't expect her to be indicted.

Heck of an Endorsement!

Hillary 2016, Loves the **** out of Drones, loathes transparency, thinks she is above the law and Not Indicted Yet!
Just like you totally ignored it. Were you hoping nobody would read it? LOL.

How mad will you be, after wasting over a year of your life obsessing over her emails, that nothing comes of it and she is elected President anyway?
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 01:37 PM   #85
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,511
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
lolz, the Shillaries really went for that line in the article that several law enforcement officials don't expect her to be indicted.

Heck of an Endorsement!

Hillary 2016, Loves the **** out of Drones, loathes transparency, thinks she is above the law and Not Indicted Yet!
Heck of an Endorsement ? She was put under the microscope and the outcome is law-enforcement officials said they don’t expect any criminal charges to be filed.

Heck of an Endorsement!
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 01:38 PM   #86
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,511
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
LOL. Is your password ABC123!?
WTF kind of non-sequitur is this ?


I run my own mail server. I see "hacking attempts." I don't run out and change my password.

Do you have an actual question, or want to have a serious discussion about this ?
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 01:46 PM   #87
mgidm86
Illuminator
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,616
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
WTF kind of non-sequitur is this ?


I run my own mail server. I see "hacking attempts." I don't run out and change my password.

Do you have an actual question, or want to have a serious discussion about this ?
I may be wrong, but I don't see changing a password having much affect on a decent hacker. I did read, however, that this Guccifer fella had to guess Blumenthal's password. I dunno - in the movies they just...

By the way, how do we know that the password was not changed? I don't remember seeing that anywhere.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 02:02 PM   #88
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,115
The Obama administration weighed in on the disclosure of Hillary's cowboy server wrangler's taking the Fifth, asserting that the disclosure would interfere with the FBI's investigation (what kind of investigation? Criminal investigation!)

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-cont...rest-01363.pdf

jw disagress/
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 04:20 PM   #89
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Just like you totally ignored it. Were you hoping nobody would read it? LOL.

How mad will you be, after wasting over a year of your life obsessing over her emails, that nothing comes of it and she is elected President anyway?
I don't know about 16.5, but I won't lose sleep either way (although it would be nice to collect $2,000 from you if I'm right, AND you pay up).

What surprises me more than anything is that on a skeptics board, so many people feel justified in claiming any odds of the outcome of an FBI investigation nobody knows anything about. The scant public knowledge that's been released doesn't support either side. In the absence of some source within the FBI, how is any position about the outcome other than agnosticism warranted?
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 04:25 PM   #90
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
WTF kind of non-sequitur is this ?


I run my own mail server. I see "hacking attempts." I don't run out and change my password.

Do you have an actual question, or want to have a serious discussion about this ?
The point is obvious: multiple hacking attempts (and those are just the ones we know about through the IG report) increase the odds that her server was compromised. Add to that you have a hacker who hacked Bush and Sidney Blumenthal claiming he got into Clinton's server, and it becomes ridiculous to claim "there's no evidence her server was hacked".

The evidence isn't rock-solid, but it wouldn't certainly be better for Clinton if there were NO admitted hacking attempts from her IT guy and NO claims by a notorious hacker.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 04:32 PM   #91
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,561
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I don't know about 16.5, but I won't lose sleep either way (although it would be nice to collect $2,000 from you if I'm right, AND you pay up).

What surprises me more than anything is that on a skeptics board, so many people feel justified in claiming any odds of the outcome of an FBI investigation nobody knows anything about. The scant public knowledge that's been released doesn't support either side. In the absence of some source within the FBI, how is any position about the outcome other than agnosticism warranted?
The position that people sending Hillary emails could possibly make her a criminal has always been extremely ridiculous.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 04:43 PM   #92
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
The position that people sending Hillary emails could possibly make her a criminal has always been extremely ridiculous.
A) there's multiple ways she could be in legal trouble (sending classified info, destroying classified info, classified info being stolen from her private server), so your position is a very naive read of the situation.

B) when has the FBI ever dedicated a dozen agents to investigating something "extremely ridiculous"? Give me an example of an FBI investigation that involved this much time and effort on something that was patently absurd.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 04:47 PM   #93
The_Animus
Master Poster
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,568
"Several law-enforcement officials said...."

If they had said she was likely to be indicted, the HRC apologists would have pointed out that "Several law-enforcement officials" means absolutely nothing.

But if they say she won't be then suddenly it's perfectly valid!
__________________
Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Moving the Goalposts, and a massive post count are all good indicators that a poster is intellectually dishonest and not interested in real discussion.

Feeding trolls only makes them stronger, yet it is so hard to refrain.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 04:59 PM   #94
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,561
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
A) there's multiple ways she could be in legal trouble (sending classified info, destroying classified info, classified info being stolen from her private server), so your position is a very naive read of the situation.

B) when has the FBI ever dedicated a dozen agents to investigating something "extremely ridiculous"? Give me an example of an FBI investigation that involved this much time and effort on something that was patently absurd.
We've known for a long time that the big issue was classified info that her employees sent to her. It is flat out ridiculous to believe that she is going to be indicted because of that.

And there has never been any evidence that Hillary Clinton herself is the main target of the investigation. Rather it seems that the investigation was how classified info was handled within the State Department. If anyone is going to be indicted it is going to be the various State Department employees that sent classified info via email, including some that ended up in Hillary's inbox. But even that doesn't seem very likely.

Also, the FBI has no doubt wasted resources investigating crap only to find nothing many times. You just never hear about it. The only reason that anybody even cares about this is because Hillary is running for President.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 05:00 PM   #95
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,561
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
"Several law-enforcement officials said...."

If they had said she was likely to be indicted, the HRC apologists would have pointed out that "Several law-enforcement officials" means absolutely nothing.

But if they say she won't be then suddenly it's perfectly valid!
But they said that they don't expect indictments.

Deal with it.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 05:13 PM   #96
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,115
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
"Several law-enforcement officials said...."

If they had said she was likely to be indicted, the HRC apologists would have pointed out that "Several law-enforcement officials" means absolutely nothing.

But if they say she won't be then suddenly it's perfectly valid!
Did they address the substance of the article (the fact that fbi's criminal investigation is focusing on cia drone attacks and hillary's lust for them)

Lol, i am guessing not

Hillary 2016, not indicted yet.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 05:26 PM   #97
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,883
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
We've known for a long time that the big issue was classified info that her employees sent to her. It is flat out ridiculous to believe that she is going to be indicted because of that.

And there has never been any evidence that Hillary Clinton herself is the main target of the investigation. Rather it seems that the investigation was how classified info was handled within the State Department. If anyone is going to be indicted it is going to be the various State Department employees that sent classified info via email, including some that ended up in Hillary's inbox. But even that doesn't seem very likely.

Also, the FBI has no doubt wasted resources investigating crap only to find nothing many times. You just never hear about it. The only reason that anybody even cares about this is because Hillary is running for President.
From the IG's report, we found out for the first time that Hillary's server came under attack from a hacker. Given that classified information existed on the server at the time, and Hillary should have known that that, it was grossly negligent of her not to report the attach to the State Department IT people as well as the FBI. Personally, I think that is an unforgivable breach of duty, and I doubt that people in the FBI's computer security area would think differently. The only thing worse from a security perspective than allowing classified information to fall into the hands of our enemies is to have that happen and not to know about it. Hillary's actions (and inaction) exacerbated the risk of that happening.

Also, I would revise your last sentence. The only reason that Hillary might not be indicted is that she is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. People would care whether or not the person undermining our national security were famous.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 05:34 PM   #98
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,561
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
From the IG's report, we found out for the first time that Hillary's server came under attack from a hacker. Given that classified information existed on the server at the time, and Hillary should have known that that, it was grossly negligent of her not to report the attach to the State Department IT people as well as the FBI. Personally, I think that is an unforgivable breach of duty, and I doubt that people in the FBI's computer security area would think differently. The only thing worse from a security perspective than allowing classified information to fall into the hands of our enemies is to have that happen and not to know about it. Hillary's actions (and inaction) exacerbated the risk of that happening.

Also, I would revise your last sentence. The only reason that Hillary might not be indicted is that she is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. People would care whether or not the person undermining our national security were famous.
I think it is extremely laughable that you even pretend that you care about this for reasons that do not include harming the Democrats. We both know you wouldn't give two ***** about any of this if the same exact thing happened except that Hillary was a Republican.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 05:48 PM   #99
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
I think it is extremely laughable that you even pretend that you care about this for reasons that do not include harming the Democrats. We both know you wouldn't give two ***** about any of this if the same exact thing happened except that Hillary was a Republican.
Attack the argument, not the arguer.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 06:09 PM   #100
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,883
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
I think it is extremely laughable that you even pretend that you care about this for reasons that do not include harming the Democrats. We both know you wouldn't give two ***** about any of this if the same exact thing happened except that Hillary was a Republican.
I might still vote for her, but I sure as hell wouldn't be defending her. I'm not defending Trump's idiocy or dishonesty. Saying that I can look past certain kinds of behavior, because there are more important issues which trump the scandals, isn't the same as lying to defend him.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 06:46 PM   #101
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,561
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
I might still vote for her, but I sure as hell wouldn't be defending her. I'm not defending Trump's idiocy or dishonesty. Saying that I can look past certain kinds of behavior, because there are more important issues which trump the scandals, isn't the same as lying to defend him.
The difference is that Trump really is a racist conman while this email nonsense is very minor, certainly not criminal.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 07:23 PM   #102
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,492
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
The difference is that Trump really is a racist conman while this email nonsense is very minor, certainly not criminal.
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Just ask 4 Star General David Patraeus if mishandling classified information is minor and not criminal. Let me know what you find.
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 07:40 PM   #103
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,561
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Just ask 4 Star General David Patraeus if mishandling classified information is minor and not criminal. Let me know what you find.
David Patreaus intentionally gave info he knew to be highly classified to his mistress (he was recorded telling her this). And lied to the FBI about it.

But you knew this.

You're not fooling anyone.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 08:00 PM   #104
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,492
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
You're not fooling anyone.
I'm not trying to fool anyone, but you are fooling yourself if you think her email issue is minor and not criminal.
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 08:06 PM   #105
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,561
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
I'm not trying to fool anyone, but you are fooling yourself if you think her email issue is minor and not criminal.
So what will your excuse be when election day comes and there is no indictment? Maybe the DOJ conspired to cover up her criminal behavior on orders from President Obama or some conspiracy theory like that? Yeah. That's surely what you people will say.

LOL.

Pathetic.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2016, 12:59 AM   #106
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,492
James, is that you behind that mask?
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2016, 10:30 AM   #107
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
I'm not trying to fool anyone, but you are fooling yourself if you think her email issue is minor and not criminal.
Ah, so you recognize the situations are different so you change the subject. How skeptical of you.

As for criminal, that's what's being investigated. Unlike you, I'm waiting for due process. Why do you hate due process? Or do you just hate due process for demoncrats?
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2016, 11:55 AM   #108
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,344
Fox is claiming Clinton received (and forwarded) an email that was marked classified (confidential level). So far, Fox is the only one running this, but they have a link to the email. If it's accurate, the email contains information that was classified confidential at the time she received and sent it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...0/banda-email/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...d-marking.html
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2016, 12:02 PM   #109
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,293
Remember when Hillary said that none of the emails she received were marked as classified? Surprise, surprise, she lied about that too.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...d-marking.html

The scandal isn't over, because Hillary cannot tell the truth.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2016, 12:16 PM   #110
John Nowak
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,805
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
When Mrs. Clinton has been asked about the possibility of being criminally charged over the email issue, she has repeatedly said “that is not going to happen.’’ [/i]

not going to happen.

not going to happen.

not going to happen.

...
Is this the sort of argument that convinces you? Quoting the most biased source imaginable, repetition, and bolding?
__________________
>Reason being is that you guys appear to have absolutely no field experience in listening for invisible people in the forest. I do.

-historian
John Nowak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2016, 01:39 PM   #111
mgidm86
Illuminator
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,616
Originally Posted by John Nowak View Post
Is this the sort of argument that convinces you? Quoting the most biased source imaginable, repetition, and bolding?

I'd say she has reason to feel confident. Obama just said he wants her to be the next President, for one.

Obama said, regarding her server, there's confidential, then there's confidential. He's mocked it from the start.

Why worry, the President is in her corner. Either he knows something we don't (though he claims he does not know anything about the investigation), or he's even dumber than I thought. Obama has been known to back some real losers (criminals) in the past few years, so it isn't out of the question.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2016, 01:54 PM   #112
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,293
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
he claims he does not know anything about the investigation
He doesn't need to know anything about the investigation, he only needs to know something about the investigator.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2016, 09:42 PM   #113
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,410
Looks like a new development:
Quote:
An explosive new report reveals just what it is that the FBI is looking to: emails in which then-Secretary of State Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations in Pakistan with her cellphone.
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/10/fbi_...e_report_says/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-...kes-1465509863

Last edited by Bob001; 12th June 2016 at 09:45 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2016, 10:15 PM   #114
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,492
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Looks like a new development:
Quote:
An explosive new report reveals just what it is that the FBI is looking to: emails in which then-Secretary of State Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations in Pakistan with her cellphone.
For those who don't know, current operational matters such as this are ALWAYS Top Secret of above, no exceptions for convenience.
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 01:06 AM   #115
shuize
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,980
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post

Clinton emailing about ongoing operations through her unsecure and unapproved cowboy bathroom server. The spin on why this is really no big deal should be awesome.

Last edited by shuize; 13th June 2016 at 01:11 AM.
shuize is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 01:19 AM   #116
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,561
Originally Posted by shuize View Post
Clinton emailing about ongoing operations through her unsecure and unapproved cowboy bathroom server. The spin on why this is really no big deal should be awesome.
I've seen no evidence whatsoever that she was the one emailing about this. Rather some of her subordinates did and forwarded some of the messages to her. Which they shouldn't have done even if she had a state.gov email.

No matter how badly the Republicans (or Bernie Bros) want it to be, she isn't a criminal just because some of her employees sent her some email containing classified info. If anything, they are the ones who committed the crime, though it is doubtful any of them will be indicted either.

Last edited by Tony Stark; 13th June 2016 at 01:34 AM.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 05:16 AM   #117
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,293
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
I've seen no evidence whatsoever that she was the one emailing about this. Rather some of her subordinates did and forwarded some of the messages to her. Which they shouldn't have done even if she had a state.gov email.

No matter how badly the Republicans (or Bernie Bros) want it to be, she isn't a criminal just because some of her employees sent her some email containing classified info. If anything, they are the ones who committed the crime, though it is doubtful any of them will be indicted either.
Sorry, doesn't get her off the hook. Even supposing that it was all their fault, not hers, and that we overlook the fact that she evidently surrounds herself with criminals, she had a legal duty to report such gross violations of information security. She failed in that duty.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 06:02 AM   #118
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,883
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Sorry, doesn't get her off the hook. Even supposing that it was all their fault, not hers, and that we overlook the fact that she evidently surrounds herself with criminals, she had a legal duty to report such gross violations of information security. She failed in that duty.
As the person in charge of the entire State Department at the time, no doubt she will accept full responsibility for the security breach. And then blame it all on her subordinates.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 06:14 AM   #119
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,115
Clinton set up the cowboy server and made her staff use it. It is ludicrous to suggest that she is not responsible and reprehensible to suggest that her subordinates should take the fall for her
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 06:19 AM   #120
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,561
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Sorry, doesn't get her off the hook. Even supposing that it was all their fault, not hers, and that we overlook the fact that she evidently surrounds herself with criminals, she had a legal duty to report such gross violations of information security. She failed in that duty.
Can you prove that she even read the emails or knew what they were about given that they were according to the liberal rag the WSJ, "vaguely worded messages [that] didn’t mention the “CIA,” “drones” or details about the militant targets."

And of course, it was hardly only State this type of thing happened at, "government workers at several agencies, including the departments of Defense, Justice and State, have occasionally resorted to the low-side system to give each other notice about sensitive but fast-moving events, according to one law-enforcement official."

But of course Hillary is the only one you guys care about. I wonder why. j/k, I know why.

Last edited by Tony Stark; 13th June 2016 at 06:32 AM.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 04:32 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.