State department: Hillary did not comply with policies

[werepossum]

Link to "MBA and over ten years of solid IT experience", please.

And sure, the whole point of document retention and the FOIA is do whatever you want, they can always find the documents some other way.

Linked from your The Daily ConJob article: http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...-v.-State-April-29-Email-Production-01441.pdf

Yawn. I'm just correcting your misinformation. If you're frustrated at being corrected again and again, find a mirror. You'll find there the one guy who's best situated to make it stop.

Did you honestly screw up here, or are you just feeding the (other) useful idiots who will see a link and assume you actually responded? READ YOUR LINK - it says ZERO about Pagliano's supposed "MBA and over ten years of solid IT experience". It is a response from State to Judicial Watch stating that they have initiated "supplemental searches" to satisfy their legal requirements under the FOIA and to date have found five emails. FIVE. From YEARS of collecting a GS-15 salary. If this is what you consider "corrected" - well, honestly it's par for the course with you.

Can't believe these are the people whom you guys wish to put in the most powerful position in the world. Although considering what you consider a correction, I can believe it all too well. Venezuela is no doubt far too open with the rubes for your tastes.

 

[Bowfinger]

Fair enough and yes she did, but I believe the process needs to play out and that she should be held accountable for that decision due to the implications, especially a decision made under a Presidential Administration that promised hope, change and transparency.

I have no problem with the FBI and IG investigations. I assume both are fundamentally objective and professional, and are investigating issues that are potentially legitimate and important. My complaint has always been the blatant misinformation, speculation, innuendo, and often outright lies spread by the GOP and their propaganda organs, and dutifully parroted by rubes lacking critical thinking skills (and/or integrity). I'm tired of the GOP's incessant smear tactics (and I'm not a Clinton fan by any means).

Judicial Watch is a partisan malignancy that exists solely to harass Democrats at substantial taxpayer expense, but that's a separate issue. Their one redeeming feature is an extensive archive of actual court documents and similar original source materials. I much prefer to read original source documents than some reporter's interpretation and spin.

 

[werepossum]

Fair enough and yes she did, but I believe the process needs to play out and that she should be held accountable for that decision due to the implications, especially a decision made under a Presidential Administration that promised hope, change and transparency.

Hey, they might actually be the most transparent administration ever. Since everything is done behind locked doors and all the documentation mysteriously disappears, we just can't see how transparent they really are.

 

[Bowfinger]

Did you honestly screw up here, or are you just feeding the (other) useful idiots who will see a link and assume you actually responded? READ YOUR LINK - it says ZERO about Pagliano's supposed "MBA and over ten years of solid IT experience". It is a response from State to Judicial Watch stating that they have initiated "supplemental searches" to satisfy their legal requirements under the FOIA and to date have found five emails. FIVE. From YEARS of collecting a GS-15 salary. If this is what you consider "corrected" - well, honestly it's par for the course with you.

Can't believe these are the people whom you guys wish to put in the most powerful position in the world. Although considering what you consider a correction, I can believe it all too well. Venezuela is no doubt far too open with the rubes for your tastes.

Pagliano's resume is the sixth page of that link, dipshit.

 

[werepossum]

Pagliano's resume is the sixth page of that link, dipshit.

Ah, my apologies. I did not pan that far down.

So would you honestly consider someone with his qualifications, certifications and experience qualified for a GS-15 position, much less to single-handedly set up the Secretary of State's sole email system?

 

[Bowfinger]

Ah, my apologies. I did not pan that far down.

So would you honestly consider someone with his qualifications, certifications and experience qualified for a GS-15 position, much less to single-handedly set up the Secretary of State's sole email system?

I honestly have no idea. His resume doesn't have enough detail for me to judge. It's enough that I'd call him in for an interview. Beyond that, who knows?

You did see where I said I suspected he was hired as a loyalty reward, right? People at high levels tend to do that, and not just in the public sector. Regardless, that's speculation, not fact.


Edit: To clarify, setting up a secure email system isn't something that requires x years of IT experience. It requires experience setting up and managing such systems in the past. A guy with only a couple of years of the right experience might do a fantastic job, while another with a CS PhD and 30 years of great experience overall might screw it up royally. Two of my best hires started as secretaries. Neither had any formal IT schooling. Both were smart, had a good knack for tech, were eager to learn, and willing to work hard. Both went on to have very successful IT careers. In short, degrees and certifications are useful, but they aren't required and they aren't the whole story.

 

[Phoenix86]

That's a separate lawsuit by Judicial Watch, a conservative attack group. It has literally zero to do with the IG or FBI investigations.

That's correct, but do you think it'll change in other depositions?

These questions are asked under oath.

 

[Bowfinger]

That's correct, but do you think it'll change in other depositions?

These questions are asked under oath.

Still more speculation treated as fact. I rest my case.

 

[Phoenix86]

Still more speculation treated as fact. I rest my case.

A question is now speculation treated as fact, maybe you're just biased.

 

[Jhhnn]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-mills-deposition-01363/

Instances of don't know: 199
Instances of dont' recall: 40
Instances of recollection: ~50
Objections: ~275 (with 269 pages, its >about an Objection a page)
Recesses/Going off the record: 12

That's some very dense lawyerese & a poor transcript, not to mention a lot of questions beyond the scope of the inquiry & subsequent objections.

I doubt you arrived at the totals yourself & I won't wade through the whole thing to verify them. Where did they come from?

 

[Jhhnn]

That's correct, but do you think it'll change in other depositions?

These questions are asked under oath.

You ask us to assume that there will be others depositions.

 

[Phoenix86]

That's some very dense lawyerese & a poor transcript, not to mention a lot of questions beyond the scope of the inquiry & subsequent objections.

I doubt you arrived at the totals yourself & I won't wade through the whole thing to verify them. Where did they come from?

Word count starts about pg. 70, not sure where I robbed the count from but it seems pretty accurate.

 

[Jhhnn]

Word count starts about pg. 70, not sure where I robbed the count from but it seems pretty accurate.

So you accuse Mills of being evasive, something I didn't get from the transcript, offer up hard numbers as to the instances & then turn evasive about where you got them.

Number? I think I have your number.

 

[Phoenix86]

So you accuse Mills of being evasive, something I didn't get from the transcript, offer up hard numbers as to the instances & then turn evasive about where you got them.

Number? I think I have your number.

Please, do quote where I accused her of being evasive.

edit: I don't know because I'm not on that pc at the time.

 

[Jhhnn]

Please, do quote where I accused her of being evasive.

What other meaning was there to gather from your numbers?

What were you trying to say by posting them?

 

[ivwshane]

What other meaning was there to gather from your numbers?

What were you trying to say by posting them?

Is Phoenix86 another buckshot clone? He certainly seems to be.

 

[werepossum]

I honestly have no idea. His resume doesn't have enough detail for me to judge. It's enough that I'd call him in for an interview. Beyond that, who knows?

You did see where I said I suspected he was hired as a loyalty reward, right? People at high levels tend to do that, and not just in the public sector. Regardless, that's speculation, not fact.


Edit: To clarify, setting up a secure email system isn't something that requires x years of IT experience. It requires experience setting up and managing such systems in the past. A guy with only a couple of years of the right experience might do a fantastic job, while another with a CS PhD and 30 years of great experience overall might screw it up royally. Two of my best hires started as secretaries. Neither had any formal IT schooling. Both were smart, had a good knack for tech, were eager to learn, and willing to work hard. Both went on to have very successful IT careers. In short, degrees and certifications are useful, but they aren't required and they aren't the whole story.

Given that the first couple of months Hillary's system did not even have any encryption, I submit that Mr. Pagliano would be better suited to secretarial work. Also, this system, due to Hillary's megalomania and control freak nature, was THE Secretary of State system. 100% of her governmental business went through this server. This is not a job for your former secretary, no matter how bright, unless that former secretary now has the proper security training and certifications - none of which Pagliano can demonstrate. It is also a system which needs constant monitoring by a team of well-trained, motivated professionals hired for more than personal loyalty.

Incidentally I just watched this argument play out in a multimillion dollar university security contract. The winning contractor has a number of technicians certified on the Lennel system. The unsuccessful contractor had one and wanted to talk about how their technicians are so well-trained internally that they do not need to be certified; they are better than certified technicians. The university did not buy that argument. Certifications exist for a reason - no matter how poorly trained, every company claims its technicians are the best. Certifications give assurance of ability. Mr. Pagliano has presented zero evidence of any education or certification in either security, system hardening, or system monitoring, and wasn't even doing this as his full time job. Unless Hillary was using the taxpayer to pay her personal SysAdmin, which would be stealing and is part of what sent James Trafficant to prison. If the FBI finds that is the case, I don't think they can decline to indict. Although the Clintons have successfully redefined acceptable behavior before, so YMMV.

 

[Jhhnn]

Given that the first couple of months Hillary's system did not even have any encryption, I submit that Mr. Pagliano would be better suited to secretarial work. Also, this system, due to Hillary's megalomania and control freak nature, was THE Secretary of State system. 100% of her governmental business went through this server. This is not a job for your former secretary, no matter how bright, unless that former secretary now has the proper security training and certifications - none of which Pagliano can demonstrate. It is also a system which needs constant monitoring by a team of well-trained, motivated professionals hired for more than personal loyalty.

Incidentally I just watched this argument play out in a multimillion dollar university security contract. The winning contractor has a number of technicians certified on the Lennel system. The unsuccessful contractor had one and wanted to talk about how their technicians are so well-trained internally that they do not need to be certified; they are better than certified technicians. The university did not buy that argument. Certifications exist for a reason - no matter how poorly trained, every company claims its technicians are the best. Certifications give assurance of ability. Mr. Pagliano has presented zero evidence of any education or certification in either security, system hardening, or system monitoring, and wasn't even doing this as his full time job. Unless Hillary was using the taxpayer to pay her personal SysAdmin, which would be stealing and is part of what sent James Trafficant to prison. If the FBI finds that is the case, I don't think they can decline to indict. Although the Clintons have successfully redefined acceptable behavior before, so YMMV.

I do love the constant side shifting innuendo. First it was about security clearance, now it's about competence & credentialism. We don't know enough about the system to make any judgments as to his capabilities or expertise in the slightest nor is there any indication that the system was penetrated, either.

Obviously, however, a system that handles ~40 emails per day needs constant monitoring by a team of well trained professionals cuz... reasons!

It's also remarkable how this sort of reasoning about credentials doesn't apply to the candidates themselves but only to their underlings. If Pagliano isn't qualified to handle an email server, how can Trump be qualified to be President? What makes him so special? Is it the string of creative bankruptcies & real estate scams? The non-stop bullshit? The fake hair? The fake tan? The crudity of talking about his dick during a presidential debate? The string of trophy wives? What?

 

[werepossum]

I do love the constant side shifting innuendo. First it was about security clearance, now it's about competence & credentialism. We don't know enough about the system to make any judgments as to his capabilities or expertise in the slightest nor is there any indication that the system was penetrated, either.

Obviously, however, a system that handles ~40 emails per day needs constant monitoring by a team of well trained professionals cuz... reasons!

It's also remarkable how this sort of reasoning about credentials doesn't apply to the candidates themselves but only to their underlings. If Pagliano isn't qualified to handle an email server, how can Trump be qualified to be President? What makes him so special? Is it the string of creative bankruptcies & real estate scams? The non-stop bullshit? The fake hair? The fake tan? The crudity of talking about his dick during a presidential debate? The string of trophy wives? What?

Um, it's about all that. I realize that you find this unbelievable, but normal people often consider more than one factor in any decision. Allow me to also point out that by your "logic" our nuclear football network needs no security whatsoever, since it's never been used. Just call up on the public line, identify yourself as the President, and order them to bomb Russia. I also love your bonus "logic" that Trump is unqualified to be President because of "the crudity of talking about his dick during a presidential debate", whereas Bill Clinton actually putting his dick in an intern just shows what a truly awesome President he was.

 

[Jhhnn]

Um, it's about all that. I realize that you find this unbelievable, but normal people often consider more than one factor in any decision. Allow me to also point out that by your "logic" our nuclear football network needs no security whatsoever, since it's never been used. Just call up on the public line, identify yourself as the President, and order them to bomb Russia. I also love your bonus "logic" that Trump is unqualified to be President because of "the crudity of talking about his dick during a presidential debate", whereas Bill Clinton actually putting his dick in an intern just shows what a truly awesome President he was.

Truly, truly desperate. A seasoned propagandist like you should be ashamed of himself.

Or, witness the truly mind bending power of irrational Hillary hate.

 

[werepossum]

Truly, truly desperate. A seasoned propagandist like you should be ashamed of himself.

Or, witness the truly mind bending power of irrational Hillary hate.

lol You never fail to fail.

 

[Jhhnn]

lol You never fail to fail.

Hurf burf double down ,huh?

Why yes, it's obvious that the nuclear launch codes are just the same as an email server, I'm sure. How silly of me to even imagine that there might be some difference.

Trump's big swinging dick? Just one of several attributes I listed. I'm so glad he told us about it, unlike Bill Clinton who tried to keep his private life private. Bill's no fun, is he? You'd love to have it on video, I'm sure.

Some guys have a thing for chubby chicks.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Cheryl Mills used a variation of an "I don't recall" response 189 times and Pagliano is pleading the 5th even with immunity. Some of you wonder why this scandal still has legs.

 

[werepossum]

Cheryl Mills used a variation of an "I don't recall" response 189 times and Pagliano is pleading the 5th even with immunity. Some of you wonder why this scandal still has legs.

Can't he be compelled to testify or else held in contempt if he refuses to testify after being granted immunity?

 

[ivwshane]

Cheryl Mills used a variation of an "I don't recall" response 189 times and Pagliano is pleading the 5th even with immunity. Some of you wonder why this scandal still has legs.

No one wonders why this "scandal still has legs", we know exactly why. We know it's still going on because the Republicans want it to go on and their braindead supporters will eat up any morsel thrown at them.