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 13th June 2016, 06:27 AM   #121
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
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
She made her staff send her classified info via emails? Source?

Oh, and it seems like nobody is taking the fall. And certainly Hillary has not suggested that anyone should take the fall for her.

How mad will you be when nothing comes of this after wasting over a year of your life obsessing over 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 13th June 2016, 08:01 AM   #122
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,942
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Emails in Clinton Probe Dealt With Planned Drone Strikes
Some vaguely worded messages from U.S. diplomats in Pakistan and Washington used a less-secure communications system


As noted above the ongoing criminal investigation deals with, in part, impending drone strikes in Pakistan.



The problem is, of course, while the original low side communication was vague, Hillary's crew's subsequent deliberations were not! Mills asks "you good with this" and a series of redacted communications ensues that were eventually sent to Hillary's cowboy server in the open.

Emails

Deliberations regarding impending Drone strikes, Guccifer must have enjoyed reading those.

/If you are having trouble accessing, look for it on google news.
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
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.
You clearly did not read the thread or an example of the emails in question.

That is some next level blind devotion to a blatantly corrupt politician.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
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, 08:12 AM   #123
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,693
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?
If that was your takeaway, you should go back and read the entire post, in context.
__________________
"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 13th June 2016, 08:16 AM   #124
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,693
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
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".
No, it's not, because .... those things are not evidence her server was hacked.

Let me paraphrase your argument:
The more you drive, the greater the odds are you will have a car accident.
You have friends who have been in car accidents.
Therefore, you have been in a car accident.


Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
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.
I agree it would be better for her without those things.
__________________
"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 13th June 2016, 08:22 AM   #125
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,693
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
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
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...0/banda-email/
(C) Purpose of Call: To offer condolences on the passing of President Mutharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.

Holy ****, that could totally endanger national security !!

TBH, I didn't even know Malawi was a country.

There are no other markings, as there should be according to the manual Fox news linked.

Lying requires intent, it doesn't seem likely there was some intent to lie and try to cover up these so-called "markings" , or that any reasonable person would see that information should be "confidential".

Weak sauce, non-issue.
__________________
"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 13th June 2016, 08:23 AM   #126
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,693
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
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.
I don't think he's dumber than you thought (although I guess I don't actually know how dumb that you think he is).
__________________
"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 13th June 2016, 08:25 AM   #127
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,194
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
Weak sauce, non-issue.
That describes this whole email manufactroversy!
wareyin 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, 08:27 AM   #128
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
You clearly did not read the thread or an example of the emails in question.

That is some next level blind devotion to a blatantly corrupt politician.
What was in the emails that we can see is very vague and you don't actually know what was redacted.

I would say that this is next level dishonesty on your part in order to smear a politician you have a fanatical obsession with and ironically say is dishonest. But really it is par for the course.
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, 08:40 AM   #129
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,693
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Covered earlier.

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
To quote:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-...kes-1465509863

Several law-enforcement officials said they don’t expect any criminal charges to be filed as a result of the investigation, although a final review of the evidence will be made only after an expected FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton this summer.

One reason is that 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.

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.’’


not going to happen.

not going to happen.

not going to happen.

...
__________________
"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 13th June 2016, 08:45 AM   #130
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,693
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Judicial Watch today released the deposition transcript of Karin Lang, director of executive secretariat staff and designated representative for the State Department. Lang was designated by the State Department as its 30(b)(6) witness. A 30(b)(6) witness is assigned to provide the agency’s testimony on the Clinton email issue.

Why did State Record keeping officials not know? This is because Hillary loathes transparency and thinks she is above the law.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...8e4_story.html

In a deposition Wednesday, answers provided by Karin M. Lang seemed to corroborate several defenses raised by Clinton and her aides in the handling of the controversy while challenging other explanations given in a lawsuit by the conservative group Judicial Watch that examines whether Clinton’s email setup thwarted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Judicial Watch’s lawsuit concerns a 2013 request for public records information about Clinton aide Huma C. Abedin’s employment arrangement.

Lang, a career employee who in July 2015 became director of the executive secretariat staff, which is responsible for records management, said that while a unit responsible for FOIA requests was told Clinton had no government email account when she took office in January 2009, no one in the unit asked whether she used a personal account to conduct business before she stepped down in 2013.

Prior to Secretary Kerry, no secretary of state used a state.gov email address,” said Lang, supporting an explanation given by aides to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee that her email setup at the State Department was not unusual.


Judicial Watch lawsuits going nowhere ... Clinton won't be testifying.
__________________
"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 13th June 2016, 08:49 AM   #131
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,942
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
What was in the emails that we can see is very vague and you don't actually know what was redacted.
Yes, Tony, I do because I read the article, I read the emails, I researched the codes referenced in the emails
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
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, 08:56 AM   #132
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Yes, Tony, I do because I read the article, I read the emails, I researched the codes referenced in the emails
The unredacted portion of emails don't say jack and according to the article "the vaguely worded messages didn’t mention the “CIA,” “drones” or details about the militant targets, officials said."

You're making stuff up. It is 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 13th June 2016, 09:17 AM   #133
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,942
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
The unredacted portion of emails don't say jack and according to the article "the vaguely worded messages didn’t mention the “CIA,” “drones” or details about the militant targets, officials said."

You're making stuff up. It is pathetic.
lolz, 'k.

Say, at least you finally read the article (although not the emails, Oh well).
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
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, 09:24 AM   #134
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,942
State Delays release of TPP Docs/emails until after the election.

Of the many, many flip flops Corrupt Hillary has made throughout her career, her trade policies are most notable.

Understandably, people want to use FOIA to research them. In what is probably another "stall" State pushed back the response for this request:

Quote:
All correspondence between the Office of the Secretary of State and the United States Trade Representative's Office that references the Trans Pacific Partnership, or "TPP." I request such correspondence from the dates 1/20/09 to 3/1/13.
From April to "November 31, 2016."

Coincidentally that day both does not exist and is after the election.

https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-...0/#comm-253356

“We must protect the Secretary’s and Under Secretary’s name" lolz so stall.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
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, 09:30 AM   #135
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
lolz, 'k.

Say, at least you finally read the article (although not the emails, Oh well).
I read the article before I even saw that you posted it. I was going to come here and say how officials don't expect any indictments. When I saw that you posted the article, I quoted you and pointed out that you failed to mention that for some odd reason.

And I read the emails. There is very little there and it is amazing that you are pretending that they are anything other than extremely vague. Do you expect people to believe you?
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, 09:33 AM   #136
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...0/banda-email/
(C) Purpose of Call: To offer condolences on the passing of President Mutharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.

Holy ****, that could totally endanger national security !!
Did you see what was on the next page?
__________________
"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, 09:42 AM   #137
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Did you see what was on the next page?
It's almost like the non-redacted part is unimportant and the redacted part is...
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit 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, 10:22 AM   #138
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,194
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Did you see what was on the next page?
Is the redacted, blank part the one that Fox and Fudbucker (eta: and you) are claiming was marked classified? Because what I could read didn't have that marking.
wareyin 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, 10:41 AM   #139
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Is the redacted, blank part the one that Fox and Fudbucker (eta: and you) are claiming was marked classified? Because what I could read didn't have that marking.
This is the document:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...0/banda-email/

At the bottom of the first page we find the following:

Quote:
(C) Purpose of Call: To offer condolences on the passing of President Mutharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.
That (C) marking indicates that what follows contains classified information. The first sentence following that remark is unredacted. Everything else following that mark is redacted. TheL8Elvis claimed that since the unredacted part did not contain sensitive information, any possible compromise of the email would have been irrelevant. There is no basis for this opinion, however. We do not know what was redacted, but the redacted information is part of what was marked as classified, and is sensitive enough that it is still not being released, so it might indeed have been significant if it had been compromised.
__________________
"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, 10:44 AM   #140
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,942
Assange threatens to release new Clinton emails.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/new...0613-0005.html

They previously released a seachable archive of her emails, but as far as I know, they were identical to the emails released by State. New previously unreleased emails would be big.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
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, 10:46 AM   #141
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,194
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This is the document:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...0/banda-email/

At the bottom of the first page we find the following:



That (C) marking indicates that what follows contains classified information. The first sentence following that remark is unredacted. Everything else following that mark is redacted. TheL8Elvis claimed that since the unredacted part did not contain sensitive information, any possible compromise of the email would have been irrelevant. There is no basis for this opinion, however. We do not know what was redacted, but the redacted information is part of what was marked as classified, and is sensitive enough that it is still not being released, so it might indeed have been significant if it had been compromised.
Thank you for that. Sounds like it's not quite the smoking gun that conservatives have been hoping for, what with "we do not know..." and "might".
wareyin 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, 11:00 AM   #142
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,942
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This is the document:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...0/banda-email/

At the bottom of the first page we find the following:



That (C) marking indicates that what follows contains classified information. The first sentence following that remark is unredacted. Everything else following that mark is redacted. TheL8Elvis claimed that since the unredacted part did not contain sensitive information, any possible compromise of the email would have been irrelevant. There is no basis for this opinion, however. We do not know what was redacted, but the redacted information is part of what was marked as classified, and is sensitive enough that it is still not being released, so it might indeed have been significant if it had been compromised.
The relevant part is not what was redacted but rather that Hillary lied that the emails that were sent to her were not marked. They clearly were, which is why the Shillaries want to cherry pick and race off in another direction.

Of course Hillary and all her staff specifically signed disclosures that classified info is classified whether marked or not.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
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, 11:25 AM   #143
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,510
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
No, it's not, because .... those things are not evidence her server was hacked.

Let me paraphrase your argument:
The more you drive, the greater the odds are you will have a car accident.
You have friends who have been in car accidents.
Therefore, you have been in a car accident.




I agree it would be better for her without those things.
Let me paraphrase your paraphrase so it actually fits:

There are signs someone tried to jimmy your car door open. A notorious car thief, who got into your friend, Sydney's, car is on the phone bragging that he got into yours.

Evidence that someone was in your car? Yes.
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 13th June 2016, 11:30 AM   #144
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,693
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This is the document:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...0/banda-email/

At the bottom of the first page we find the following:

That (C) marking indicates that what follows contains classified information. The first sentence following that remark is unredacted. Everything else following that mark is redacted. TheL8Elvis claimed that since the unredacted part did not contain sensitive information, any possible compromise of the email would have been irrelevant.
I did ?
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...0/banda-email/
(C) Purpose of Call: To offer condolences on the passing of President Mutharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.

Holy ****, that could totally endanger national security !!

TBH, I didn't even know Malawi was a country.

There are no other markings, as there should be according to the manual Fox news linked.

Lying requires intent, it doesn't seem likely there was some intent to lie and try to cover up these so-called "markings" , or that any reasonable person would see that information should be "confidential".

Weak sauce, non-issue.
Nope, I don't think I did.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
There is no basis for this opinion, however.We do not know what was redacted, but the redacted information is part of what was marked as classified, and is sensitive enough that it is still not being released, so it might indeed have been significant if it had been compromised.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, oh what a Christmas we'd have.

Would you care to address where all the rest of the required markings are, and intent ? Or no... let's just dismiss those and pretned and email about condolences and congratulations was full of sooper-sekrit govtinfo.
__________________
"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

Last edited by TheL8Elvis; 13th June 2016 at 11:32 AM.
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 13th June 2016, 11:31 AM   #145
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,693
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Let me paraphrase your paraphrase so it actually fits:

There are signs someone tried to jimmy your car door open. A notorious car thief, who got into your friend, Sydney's, car is on the phone bragging that he got into yours.

Evidence that someone was in your car? Yes.
LOL. No.

I work in IT security. If I say no one got into Clintons server, that would appear to count as "evidence" in your world.

Somethings wrong in your world.
__________________
"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 13th June 2016, 11:42 AM   #146
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,510
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
LOL. No.

I work in IT security. If I say no one got into Clintons server, that would appear to count as "evidence" in your world.

Somethings wrong in your world.
If you were the IT person in charge of Clinton's server, you might have a point, but you're not, so there isn't one. And you wouldn't be talking anyway, cause you would have plead the 5th.

The person claiming to have hacked Clinton has also hacked Bush and Clinton's friend, Sydney Blumenthal. He certainly is not just "any old hacker".

And of course there are the reported hacking attempts (at least two). If a person tries to hack into your system, there's a chance they did hack into your system.

Oh, and the IT guy in charge of Clinton just happens to plead the 5th, because IT guys do that all the time.

But no evidence, none at all. Nothing to see here!
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 13th June 2016, 11:45 AM   #147
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,510
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Thank you for that. Sounds like it's not quite the smoking gun that conservatives have been hoping for, what with "we do not know..." and "might".
Except it was marked classified (That little C in parantheses) at the time Clinton received and forwarded it and I seem to recall something Clinton said about sending/receiving info that was marked classified.

No doubt yet another honest mistake on her part. I'm a little leery about this story, so I'm waiting until a less partisan outlet goes with it.
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 13th June 2016, 11:49 AM   #148
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,194
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Except it was marked classified (That little C in parantheses) at the time Clinton received and forwarded it and I seem to recall something Clinton said about sending/receiving info that was marked classified.

No doubt yet another honest mistake on her part. I'm a little leery about this story, so I'm waiting until a less partisan outlet goes with it.
It's refreshing to see you doubt Fox news, for once.

Eta: According to the manual TheL8Elvis linked, the document should have been marked according to the highest classification, yet this email was marked unclassified. Any thoughts on this, or am I reading something wrong?

Last edited by wareyin; 13th June 2016 at 11:53 AM.
wareyin 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, 11:52 AM   #149
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,693
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
If you were the IT person in charge of Clinton's server, you might have a point, but you're not, so there isn't one. And you wouldn't be talking anyway, cause you would have plead the 5th.

The person claiming to have hacked Clinton has also hacked Bush and Clinton's friend, Sydney Blumenthal. He certainly is not just "any old hacker".

And of course there are the reported hacking attempts (at least two). If a person tries to hack into your system, there's a chance they did hack into your system.

Oh, and the IT guy in charge of Clinton just happens to plead the 5th, because IT guys do that all the time.

But no evidence, none at all. Nothing to see here!
Are we just talking past each other ?

I agree, some of the things you pointed out make it more likely (to X degree, TBD) that her email server was compromised.

I disagree that any of it is evidence her server actually was compromised.

Please explain to me how you believe increased likelihood is evidence of actuality, because that's where I keep stumbling.
__________________
"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 13th June 2016, 11:53 AM   #150
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
I did ?
Yes, you did. "Holy ****, that could totally endanger national security !!" This was obviously said with sarcasm. Except you don't know what threat any possible leak posed, because you don't know what was in it, because the classified material was redacted.

Quote:
Would you care to address where all the rest of the required markings are
There don't need to be any additional markings in order for Hillary to treat it as classified. Any failure on the part of her subordinates to include more markings doesn't make this any better for her, since that just means there were more problems she should have been aware of that she never corrected.

Quote:
and intent ?
Every time Hillary has offered a defense of her email habits, her statements were later proven wrong. There's a pattern here. She's either unbelievably stupid AND unlucky to get it so consistently wrong, or she was lying. The obviously more likely explanation is that she has been lying.

Quote:
Or no... let's just dismiss those and pretned and email about condolences and congratulations was full of sooper-sekrit govtinfo.
It contained classified information. It was marked as classified. She claimed she never received anything that was marked classified. Like all her previous excuses, this one was a lie. And you are in no position to evaluate the sensitivity of that information.
__________________
"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, 11:56 AM   #151
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Thank you for that. Sounds like it's not quite the smoking gun that conservatives have been hoping for, what with "we do not know..." and "might".
But we DO know. We know she received classified information that was marked as classified. We know that she denied having received information marked as classified. We don't know what that information was, but the relevant laws and regulations don't depend upon those particulars. She had a duty in regards to such information, and she failed 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, 12:06 PM   #152
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,510
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
Are we just talking past each other ?

I agree, some of the things you pointed out make it more likely (to X degree, TBD) that her email server was compromised.

I disagree that any of it is evidence her server actually was compromised.

Please explain to me how you believe increased likelihood is evidence of actuality, because that's where I keep stumbling.
OK, just imagine that instead of 2 hacking attempts and one hacker claiming to have successfully gotten into her system, there were 200 hacking attempts and 20 hackers all saying the same thing. Or 2,000 attempts and 200 people.

If the 2 attacks and one person's claim isn't evidence that her server was compromised, then it wouldn't matter how many hacking attempts were made or how many people claim to have gotten in. Adding/Multiplying by zero gets you zero. But it does matter. Unless you want to make the claim that hundreds of hacking attempts wouldn't be evidence that her server was compromised, and that's ludicrous.

Every time there's a hacking attempt, there's a chance that the attempt was successful. Who are you going to believe that the attack wasn't successful? The IT guy who plead the 5th? Clinton? And every time someone claims to have hacked her, there's a chance they're telling the truth.
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 13th June 2016, 12:15 PM   #153
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,510
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
It's refreshing to see you doubt Fox news, for once.

Eta: According to the manual TheL8Elvis linked, the document should have been marked according to the highest classification, yet this email was marked unclassified. Any thoughts on this, or am I reading something wrong?
Catherine Herridge isn't a nut job. I'm inclined to believe her article.
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 13th June 2016, 12:16 PM   #154
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,693
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
OK, just imagine that instead of 2 hacking attempts and one hacker claiming to have successfully gotten into her system, there were 200 hacking attempts and 20 hackers all saying the same thing. Or 2,000 attempts and 200 people.

If the 2 attacks and one person's claim isn't evidence that her server was compromised, then it wouldn't matter how many hacking attempts were made or how many people claim to have gotten in. Adding/Multiplying by zero gets you zero. But it does matter. Unless you want to make the claim that hundreds of hacking attempts wouldn't be evidence that her server was compromised, and that's ludicrous.
IMO, no, it wouldn't.
Attempts are not evidence of success, no matter how much you want it to be so.

I'd be curious if someone else agrees with you, and could try to explain it in a different way.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Every time there's a hacking attempt, there's a chance that the attempt was successful. Who are you going to believe that the attack wasn't successful? The IT guy who plead the 5th? Clinton? And every time someone claims to have hacked her, there's a chance they're telling the truth.
You mean the IT guy who cooperated with the FBI ?

I'm believing the leak that claimed there was no evidence of compromise:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us...king.html?_r=0
A former aide to Hillary Clinton has turned over to the F.B.I. computer security logs from Mrs. Clinton’s private server, records that showed no evidence of foreign hacking, according to people close to a federal investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails.


That, and the lack of any leak or evidence to the contrary.

Again, Guccifers self-serving claim, by itself, is not evidence he hacked anything.
__________________
"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 13th June 2016, 12:16 PM   #155
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,194
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
OK, just imagine that instead of 2 hacking attempts and one hacker claiming to have successfully gotten into her system, there were 200 hacking attempts and 20 hackers all saying the same thing. Or 2,000 attempts and 200 people.

If the 2 attacks and one person's claim isn't evidence that her server was compromised, then it wouldn't matter how many hacking attempts were made or how many people claim to have gotten in. Adding/Multiplying by zero gets you zero. But it does matter. Unless you want to make the claim that hundreds of hacking attempts wouldn't be evidence that her server was compromised, and that's ludicrous.

Every time there's a hacking attempt, there's a chance that the attempt was successful. Who are you going to believe that the attack wasn't successful? The IT guy who plead the 5th? Clinton? And every time someone claims to have hacked her, there's a chance they're telling the truth.
Wait, are you really claiming that the number of attempts made to do something is evidence that it was done? For instance, if I can show that enough attempts were made to claim Randi's MDC, that is evidence of a successful MDC claim?
wareyin 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, 12:19 PM   #156
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,693
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
It's refreshing to see you doubt Fox news, for once.

Eta: According to the manual TheL8Elvis linked, the document should have been marked according to the highest classification, yet this email was marked unclassified. Any thoughts on this, or am I reading something wrong?
The unclassified markings are from the redacted email release of clintons emails.
__________________
"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 13th June 2016, 12:19 PM   #157
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,194
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But we DO know. We know she received classified information that was marked as classified. We know that she denied having received information marked as classified. We don't know what that information was, but the relevant laws and regulations don't depend upon those particulars. She had a duty in regards to such information, and she failed that duty.
We know that it wasn't properly marked classified, at least according to the manual TheL8Elvis linked on classifications markings.
wareyin 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, 12:20 PM   #158
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,510
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Wait, are you really claiming that the number of attempts made to do something is evidence that it was done? For instance, if I can show that enough attempts were made to claim Randi's MDC, that is evidence of a successful MDC claim?
Of course not because every attempt has been a failure, and there's no evidence the paranormal exists. Has every hacking attempt been a failure? Is hacking paranormal?
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 13th June 2016, 12:20 PM   #159
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,194
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
The unclassified markings are from the redacted email release of clintons emails.
Ok, then I am misunderstanding the situation. What markings are missing?
wareyin 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, 12:22 PM   #160
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,194
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Of course not because every attempt has been a failure, and there's no evidence the paranormal exists. Has every hacking attempt been a failure? Is hacking paranormal?
And there's no evidence that a successful hack exists, and all evidence points to every attempt being a failure. Which is why claiming that the number of attempts is evidence of a successful attempt is just wrong.
wareyin 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 06:43 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.