Clinton to hand over email server to FBI

[Bowfinger]

Go ahead and point out where I said this article that I haven't read is my primary source of information.

Why would I do that, since that's not what I said? My point, which seemingly sailed far above your head, it that it is the speculation and innuendo of RNC propaganda sites that are painting this story as an "unmitigated shitshow." An accurate portrayal of this story, limited to actual facts, reveals this story to be blown way out of proportion so far, pending results of the FBI investigation.

Yes, and so was Bierce.

“You don't have to be stupid to be a Christian, ... but it probably helps?" Seems rather irrelevant to this story, unless you're suggesting the faithful are just as easily duped by their party as their shamans. I'm not making such a claim.

 

[UberNeuman]

Let's see.... I have a bookmark for the Birth Certificate thread, the ACORN thread, the IRS thread and the Benghazi thread...

Oh hell, why not add just one more for this one.

\y'all going to be let down again....

 

[nickqt]

Let's see.... I have a bookmark for the Birth Certificate thread, the ACORN thread, the IRS thread and the Benghazi thread...

Oh hell, why not add just one more for this one.

\y'all going to be let down again....

You don't understand.

14+ months out from election and everyone totally cares about HRC's email server just like they cared about Colin Powell's email server while he was SoS!

 

[Bowfinger]

As opposed to? Do you have anything to refute it?

I do. I have a DailyKOS article* that says Clinton's email server was the most secure server on Earth. So there!

(*Not really, since I never visit DailyKOS. But if they don't have such an article already, I can certainly be the "computer expert" that will corroborate such a story for them. Damn, you guys lack critical thinking skills, or you suppress them when some liar tells you what you want to hear.)

How about the fact that the one easter European hacker got into Blumenthal's AOL account. If he had that, he had the Clinton email domain. If he had that he knew where to attack. If he knew where to attack either he could have himself or told another. Not surprisingly there might have been legit hillary emails for sale online.

Jhnnn, we could find the emails stating all us secrets and know they were from Clinton's inbox and you'd still excuse her. Thsts because you are a fucking shill.

You guys just don't get it. The State Department email system was also hacked. Indeed, it is safe to assume almost every Internet-connected email system has been hacked successfully. That's why classified material is prohibited on any email systems.

All the noise about Clinton having her own server is a giant red herring to further inflame the rubes. The real story here is how potentially classified information slips into insecure channels through casual conversations. The question, not yet answered, is whether anyone in Clinton's DoS crossed the line into disclosures that warrant prosecution. Of course that's a complex story with lots of shades of gray that will confuse the rubes, and it puts most of the focus on Clinton's staff instead of Clinton herself. That's not the sort of simple-minded sensationalism that sells papers and page views.

Here, educate yourself: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...cabed8-4cf4-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html

 

[Knowing]

Why would I do that, since that's not what I said? My point, which seemingly sailed far above your head, it that it is the speculation and innuendo of RNC propaganda sites that are painting this story as an "unmitigated shitshow."

Imagine that. When one relies on partisan propaganda sites as their primary source of information, every story about their opponents looks like an "unmitigated shitshow.' What an amazing coincidence.

Please, tell me where I get my news.

An accurate portrayal of this story, limited to actual facts, reveals this story to be blown way out of proportion so far, pending results of the FBI investigation.

Was there ever any evidence indicating that the RNC server red herring that will not die processed classified information?

“You don't have to be stupid to be a Christian, ... but it probably helps?" Seems rather irrelevant to this story, unless you're suggesting the faithful are just as easily duped by their party as their shamans. I'm not making such a claim.

I think it's cute that you're trying to offend me, by thinking that quotes about Christianity by a satirist and cynic who wrote "The Devil's Dictionary" would aggravate my delicate sensibilities when I'm the one who brought him up in the first place. I was thinking more along the lines of

PARTISAN, n. An adherent without sense.

or

PRESIDENT, n. The leading figure in a small group of men of whom — and of whom only — it is positively known that immense numbers of their countrymen did not want any of them for President.

or

SENATE, n. A body of elderly gentlemen charged with high duties and misdemeanors.


I also think it's trèsadorbs that you appear to believe that I subscribe to a party just because I disagree with the democrats.

 

[werepossum]

I do. I have a DailyKOS article* that says Clinton's email server was the most secure server on Earth. So there!

(*Not really, since I never visit DailyKOS. But if they don't have such an article already, I can certainly be the "computer expert" that will corroborate such a story for them. Damn, you guys lack critical thinking skills, or you suppress them when some liar tells you what you want to hear.)


You guys just don't get it. The State Department email system was also hacked. Indeed, it is safe to assume almost every Internet-connected email system has been hacked successfully. That's why classified material is prohibited on any email systems.

All the noise about Clinton having her own server is a giant red herring to further inflame the rubes. The real story here is how potentially classified information slips into insecure channels through casual conversations. The question, not yet answered, is whether anyone in Clinton's DoS crossed the line into disclosures that warrant prosecution. Of course that's a complex story with lots of shades of gray that will confuse the rubes, and it puts most of the focus on Clinton's staff instead of Clinton herself. That's not the sort of simple-minded sensationalism that sells papers and page views.

Here, educate yourself: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...cabed8-4cf4-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html

Hmm, first you sneer at others for using biased media with anonymous sources. Then you post an opinion piece by a far left opinion writer which quotes anonymous sources. And your link admits the point that it is a crime and gives examples of people prosecuted for such things even as it tries to make the point that it's a crime "but not really" and "nobody's ever prosecuted" for it.

Yeah, you one smart fella.

 

[werepossum]

Let's see.... I have a bookmark for the Birth Certificate thread, the ACORN thread, the IRS thread and the Benghazi thread...

Oh hell, why not add just one more for this one.

\y'all going to be let down again....

So, is there anything at all Clinton could possibly do that would concern you, make you think she might not be suited to lead the free world?

 

[Bowfinger]

Please, tell me where I get my news.

Based on your posting history and your biased take on this story, it appears you rely heavily on right wing sources ... sources with histories of dishonest reporting. But, why are you playing coy? You tell us. Give us a link or two to your sources that led you to calling this an "unmitigated shitshow."

Was there ever any evidence indicating that the RNC server red herring that will not die processed classified information?

Strangely enough, I don't remember Republicans and their smear machine ever raising that question. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine why they are now raising that issue with Clinton.

I think it's cute that you're trying to offend me, by thinking that quotes about Christianity by a satirist and cynic who wrote "The Devil's Dictionary" would aggravate my delicate sensibilities when I'm the one who brought him up in the first place. I was thinking more along the lines of

PARTISAN, n. An adherent without sense.

or

PRESIDENT, n. The leading figure in a small group of men of whom — and of whom only — it is positively known that immense numbers of their countrymen did not want any of them for President.

or

SENATE, n. A body of elderly gentlemen charged with high duties and misdemeanors.

I think it's cute that you try to be all smart-sounding when you so clearly struggle with reading comprehension. My goal wasn't offending you. It was pointing out how lame your Bierce response was. When I said Barnum was right, most people will immediately think of the line, "There's a sucker born every minute." (Though ironically, it's likely not an actual Barnum quote.) My meaning was clear and directly on topic with the rest of my comment. Bierce, in contrast, is not associated with such a singular line. (Hell, you couldn't even pick just one.) Thus, your "Bierce" retort fails as a muddled and blatant attempt to sound clever. I illustrated this by picking a pithy Bierce quote completely unrelated to the topic.

I also think it's trèsadorbs that you appear to believe that I subscribe to a party just because I disagree with the democrats.

Actions speak louder than words, my friend. Your posting history suggests you are a faithful Republican. If I'm mistaken, please feel free to show us examples of you attacking the GOP.

 

[Bowfinger]

Hmm, first you sneer at others for using biased media with anonymous sources. Then you post an opinion piece by a far left opinion writer which quotes anonymous sources. And your link admits the point that it is a crime and gives examples of people prosecuted for such things even as it tries to make the point that it's a crime "but not really" and "nobody's ever prosecuted" for it.

Yeah, you one smart fella.

I see ye Master Slayer of Straw strikes again. /golfclap

I provided a link. I've not cited anything in it as fact, though any honest reader (i.e., not you) will recognize there is a lot of interesting information in it. One will have to make his own judgment about what to accept from it, but there's nothing in it that seems especially controversial. He's simply explaining an arcane topic about which most people are clueless.

You're also being predictably dishonest in claiming, "it is a crime and gives examples of people prosecuted for such things." In fact, both of the examples cited were of people mishandling explicitly classified documents that were, in fact, marked as classified at that time. Not even Fox is claiming Clinton had such classified documents, or correspondence marked as classified. Instead, all of the discussion is about email discussions that mention stories, topics, etc., that are now retroactively being marked as potentially classified. Apples and oranges.

 

[UberNeuman]

So, is there anything at all Clinton could possibly do that would concern you, make you think she might not be suited to lead the free world?

It's not a matter of what I think. It's a matter of what is presented now - and that is right now is over heated supposition and rightwing jabber-jawing over the *spooky music* Hilary!

Have I suggested that investigations into this are not warranted? Go ahead. Investigate away...

Just try not to be too disappointed when nobody cares... Or quit trying to start a bonfire with piss instead of gasoline and then be shocked when it doesn't take flame...

 

[werepossum]

It's not a matter of what I think. It's a matter of what is presented now - and that is right now is over heated supposition and rightwing jabber-jawing over the *spooky music* Hilary!

Have I suggested that investigations into this are not warranted? Go ahead. Investigate away...

Just try not to be too disappointed when nobody cares... Or quit trying to start a bonfire with piss instead of gasoline and then be shocked when it doesn't take flame...

lol "No" would have sufficed.

 

[cabri]

Citation needed. I don't believe the two have anything to do with each other. He can provide plenty of information to the FBI while still declining to formally testify before a Congressional hearing. I can even understand why he might. There's a world of difference between a legitimate investigation seeking criminal malfeasance and a partisan witch hunt seeking campaign propaganda.

"Mr. Pagliano’s legal counsel told the committee yesterday that he would plead the 5th to any and all questions if he were compelled to testify," a spokesperson for Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, told Fox late Wednesday.

A letter from Pagliano's attorney Mark MacDougall explaining his client's decision cited the ongoing FBI investigation into whether classified national security information was mishandled when it passed through Clinton's server.

Why bring up the FBI investigation in refusing to talk to Congress

Anything he might say in front on Congress could be used by the FBI if there are issues found regarding the server/handling of information

 

[Jhhnn]

Why bring up the FBI investigation in refusing to talk to Congress

Anything he might say in front on Congress could be used by the FBI if there are issues found regarding the server/handling of information

Meh. It can easily mean that the subject would rather answer honest questions from the FBI rather than loaded ones from Congressional Repubs.

Putting myself in their place, I'd do the same as likely would you.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Citation needed.

Is a highly partisan Op-ed OK? lol

 

[Blackjack200]

So, is there anything at all Clinton could possibly do that would concern you, make you think she might not be suited to lead the free world?

Why would we not measure her blemishes against the considerable blemishes of the eventual GOP nominee as we do in every other election? You consider an email server more important than the war mongering, racism, xenophobia, and theocratic ideas coming from the GOP. That's your call.



Your concern trolling is pathetic.

 

[cabri]

Why would we not measure her blemishes against the considerable blemishes of the eventual GOP nominee as we do in every other election? You consider an email server more important than the war mongering, racism, xenophobia, and theocratic ideas coming from the GOP. That's your call.



Your concern trolling is pathetic.

It is not the email server itself; but the attitude.

• The Holier than thou.
• I do not have to be accountable.
• If it serves my political purpose, I will close my eyes to anything that may be questionable.
• My decision is infaliable

 

[Bowfinger]

Is a highly partisan Op-ed OK? lol

You don't seem to have a problem with them when they come from Breitbart or Daily Caller. Of course, had I linked one of his pro-Israel columns or his criticisms of the Obama administration, I suspect you'd suddenly see him as perceptive and well informed. The only reason you see this piece as "highly partisan" is because it undermines the RNC smear. In reality, there's little in it that's even vaguely partisan outside of the title. (Perhaps that's all you read.)

 

[Blackjack200]

It is not the email server itself; but the attitude.

• The Holier than thou.
• I do not have to be accountable.
• If it serves my political purpose, I will close my eyes to anything that may be questionable.
• My decision is infaliable

She already said she made a mistake, so I guess that blows up your whole argument. Not that you'll retreat from it.

 

[Bowfinger]

Why bring up the FBI investigation in refusing to talk to Congress

Anything he might say in front on Congress could be used by the FBI if there are issues found regarding the server/handling of information

You asserted as fact that he is hindering the FBI investigation. What you have, however, is mere speculation. I don't know if he is or is not cooperating with the FBI ... and neither do you.

It is not the email server itself; but the attitude.

• The Holier than thou.
• I do not have to be accountable.
• If it serves my political purpose, I will close my eyes to anything that may be questionable.
• My decision is infaliable

While her "attitude" may be a great reason for you to not vote for her -- not that you would in any case -- it has nothing to do with the legality of her actions. I don't much like Clinton either, but I'm not going to join a dishonest smear campaign just because of my feelings.

 

[Blackjack200]

You don't seem to have a problem with them when they come from Breitbart or Daily Caller. Of course, had I linked one of his pro-Israel columns or his criticisms of the Obama administration, I suspect you'd suddenly see him as perceptive and well informed. The only reason you see this piece as "highly partisan" is because it undermines the RNC smear. In reality, there's little in it that's even vaguely partisan outside of the title. (Perhaps that's all you read.)

I went on the Bill O'Reilly page on Fox News the other night because he had Jorge Ramos as a guest (spolier: the exchange wasn't that great)

I noticed that there was an interview with VP Cheney and Liz Cheney so I watched that too. I was frustrated that O'Reilly never challenged the VP on credibility, but I watched the whole thing. Wow, it's possible to expose yourself to viewpoints you disagree with.

David Ignatius spoke with a pretty good cross section of legal and political experts for his piece, I thought it was insightful and informative. I guess it's easy to dismiss if you don't want to hear that perspective though.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You don't seem to have a problem with them when they come from Breitbart or Daily Caller. Of course, had I linked one of his pro-Israel columns or his criticisms of the Obama administration, I suspect you'd suddenly see him as perceptive and well informed. The only reason you see this piece as "highly partisan" is because it undermines the RNC smear. In reality, there's little in it that's even vaguely partisan outside of the title. (Perhaps that's all you read.)

Nice try, but I generally avoid both those sources. If you want to believe that the author of the highly opinionated Op-ed you cited is not biased, go for it...believe what you want to believe, disregard the rest. But I will say one thing, I am amazed at his ability to conclude that there were no significant improprieties that may warrant legal action BEFORE the investigations have been completed. He's a fucking Nostradamus!

 

[fskimospy]

Nice try, but I generally avoid both those sources. If you want to believe that the author of the highly opinionated Op-ed you cited is not biased, go for it...believe what you want to believe, disregard the rest. But I will say one thing, I am amazed at his ability to conclude that there were no significant improprieties that may warrant legal action BEFORE the investigations have been completed. He's a fucking Nostradamus!

I'm not sure if you're in a good position to complain about other people citing 'highly opinionated op-ed's considering how often you do exactly that.

 

[Bowfinger]

I'm not sure if you're in a good position to complain about other people citing 'highly opinionated op-ed's considering how often you do exactly that.

Which was exactly my point. Rather than address my point, he chose to duhvert by quibbling about which sources of highly-opinionated op-eds he indulges. He also ignored the fact that this op-ed was more informative than opinionated, because that wouldn't serve his agenda. Sad.

 

[cabri]

She already said she made a mistake, so I guess that blows up your whole argument. Not that you'll retreat from it.

I listed four examples.

Note that she admitted only after the publicly available evidence start to pile up. She denied the mistake for months.

The admitting of a mistake covers only half of one of my listed issues.

 

[cabri]

You asserted as fact that he is hindering the FBI investigation. What you have, however, is mere speculation. I don't know if he is or is not cooperating with the FBI ... and neither do you.

I did not assert that he was hindering the investigation. I indicated that he did not want anything stated in front of congress to be available to the FBI.

While her "attitude" may be a great reason for you to not vote for her -- not that you would in any case -- it has nothing to do with the legality of her actions. I don't much like Clinton either, but I'm not going to join a dishonest smear campaign just because of my feelings.

Legality will come with respect to the FBI investigation.

She had classified information on a non-secure server and knew it.
She transmitted information using that server that should not have been and knew it.

Both of those are considered to be either illegal or justified grounds for termination of government related positions and revoking security clearance.