The butter on her e-mails is officially rancid, can we throw them out now?

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Yes, even after Trump's State Department, run by hyper-partisan lackey Pompeo, once again investigates Clinton's e-mails (and those of the entire State Department under Clinton), and they found, drumroll please, exactly what the FBI determined three years ago: no evidence of intentional wrongdoing and no systemic problems in the handling of e-mails.

Oh, but they did find 91 individual "infractions" - a meaningless number unless or until we conduct similar investigations of prior State Departments and Trump's own SD for comparison. But that, of course, wasn't the agenda here, as it would be to anyone sincerely concerned about cyber-security.


Are we done yet, or is this another eternal right wing faux scandal that we'll still be hearing about in 2050?
 
Last edited:

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Are the 91 infractions based on post hoc classification?

Not sure, but possible, given the fact that they are called "infractions" in the first place being because the e-mails were not marked classified at the time. A point of clarification, however - not all 91 were infractions. A very small number, doesn't say how many, were more serious, but those were adjudicated and handled at the time the violations occurred. Hence why this was another politically motivated and unnecessary misuse of government resources.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Yes, even after Trump's State Department, run by hyper-partisan lackey Pompeo, once again investigates Clinton's e-mails (and those of the entire State Department under Clinton), and they found, drumroll please, exactly what the FBI determined three years ago: no evidence of intentional wrongdoing and no systemic problems in the handling of e-mails.

Oh, but they did find 91 individual "infractions" - a meaningless number unless or until we conduct similar investigations of prior State Departments and Trump's own SD for comparison. But that, of course, wasn't the agenda here, as it would be to anyone sincerely concerned about cyber-security.


Are we done yet, or is this another eternal right wing faux scandal that we'll still be hearing about in 2050?

Your mistake is thinking that the Republicans ever actually cared if there was wrongdoing.

I mean we have abundant evidence that Trump administration officials are communicating official business using private servers today as I write this. They could be committing every offense Republicans claimed Clinton was and they couldn’t care less.

It’s not just politicians. The people on here who pretended to be deeply concerned about the ins and outs of email security and classification have no problem with it either. The mistake from the beginning was pretending that these people were acting in good faith.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Your mistake is thinking that the Republicans ever actually cared if there was wrongdoing.

I mean we have abundant evidence that Trump administration officials are communicating official business using private servers today as I write this. They could be committing every offense Republicans claimed Clinton was and they couldn’t care less.

It’s not just politicians. The people on here who pretended to be deeply concerned about the ins and outs of email security and classification have no problem with it either. The mistake from the beginning was pretending that these people were acting in good faith.

Oh, I'm aware that they're completely insincere about all of this, that they don't give two shits about e-mail security at the State Department or anywhere else. What interests me more, to further the metaphor, is when, like rotting food, does a tepid and unproven after two official investigations "scandal" like this ever finally pass its expiration date?

I mean, they're still accusing the Clintons of murdering Vince Foster for crying out loud. How many times has that been debunked?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Oh, I'm aware that they're completely insincere about all of this, that they don't give two shits about e-mail security at the State Department or anywhere else. What interests me more, to further the metaphor, is when, like rotting food, does a tepid and unproven after two official investigations "scandal" like this ever finally pass its expiration date?

I mean, they're still accusing the Clintons of murdering Vince Foster for crying out loud. How many times has that been debunked?

I imagine the scandal passes its expiration date when pretending to believe it is no longer politically useful.

What I really wish is that the news media and everything else would stop pretending to believe Republicans when they do things like this. We all know they are lying so why pretend otherwise?
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
I say put it away........... as soon as a Grand Jury reads and makes a judgement on those 91 infractions. If they hand down 90 or 11 or even 1 indictment we can proceed from there.
 

uallas5

Golden Member
Jun 3, 2005
1,476
1,650
136
I say put it away........... as soon as a Grand Jury reads and makes a judgement on those 91 infractions. If they hand down 90 or 11 or even 1 indictment we can proceed from there.

Already Happened:


A point of clarification, however - not all 91 were infractions. A very small number, doesn't say how many, were more serious, but those were adjudicated and handled at the time the violations occurred.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,205
10,865
136
Yes, even after Trump's State Department, run by hyper-partisan lackey Pompeo, once again investigates Clinton's e-mails (and those of the entire State Department under Clinton), and they found, drumroll please, exactly what the FBI determined three years ago: no evidence of intentional wrongdoing and no systemic problems in the handling of e-mails.

Oh, but they did find 91 individual "infractions" - a meaningless number unless or until we conduct similar investigations of prior State Departments and Trump's own SD for comparison. But that, of course, wasn't the agenda here, as it would be to anyone sincerely concerned about cyber-security.


Are we done yet, or is this another eternal right wing faux scandal that we'll still be hearing about in 2050?
Nope they just announced they are expanding the investigation as to why the Russian investigation started in the first place, even though once again it's been debunked by their inspector general. If at first you don't succeed try, try again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
I say put it away........... as soon as a Grand Jury reads and makes a judgement on those 91 infractions. If they hand down 90 or 11 or even 1 indictment we can proceed from there.
How is that? Did a Grand Jury see them or was this a Director Comey off the cuff decision?

The usual penalties for such unintential infractions are and have been a review of security clearances. Grand jury? Not for anything like this and that's how it's always been.

Now if you want a grand jury for minor things then let's consider the many years of potential prison time for Kushner who several times made repeated and serious omissions on his paperwork. Let's go there on all of Trump's associates and family shall we?

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and you really don't want that.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
The usual penalties for such unintential infractions are and have been a review of security clearances. Grand jury? Not for anything like this and that's how it's always been.

Now if you want a grand jury for minor things then let's consider the many years of potential prison time for Kushner who several times made serious omissions. Let's go there on all of Trump's associates shall we?

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and you really don't want that.
Frankly i'm not that sure, especially after seeing the circus in the House.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,205
10,865
136
The usual penalties for such unintential infractions are and have been a review of security clearances. Grand jury? Not for anything like this and that's how it's always been.

Now if you want a grand jury for minor things then let's consider the many years of potential prison time for Kushner who several times made repeated and serious omissions on his paperwork. Let's go there on all of Trump's associates and family shall we?

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and you really don't want that.
He could give a shit. If Trump were not president, he could NEVER get a security clearance.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Frankly i'm not that sure, especially after seeing the circus in the House.

Frankly I am based on the facts of the matter. But shall we look at definite misleading and criminal omissions by Kushner and others? I'm absolutely sure these are grounds for termination and severe penalties. What happens in the House is entirely independent of the review so that is an entirely specious argument.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
Frankly I am based on the facts of the matter. But shall we look at definite misleading and criminal omissions by Kushner and others? I'm absolutely sure these are grounds for termination and severe penalties. What happens in the House is entirely independent of the review so that is an entirely specious argument.
It would only matter if i gave a rats behind on what happens to Kushner et al. in the future, I don't. What happens in the House can and will be played out in other venues and only time will tell what the eventual outcome will be.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
It would only matter if i gave a rats behind on what happens to Kushner et al. in the future, I don't. What happens in the House can and will be played out in other venues and only time will tell what the eventual outcome will be.


Of course the House has nothing to do with the investigation. I'm having potato leek soup and pan-seared ribeye which is at least as relevant.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
Of course the House has nothing to do with the investigation. I'm having potato leek soup and pan-seared ribeye which is at least as relevant.
Relevant and incredibly good, but i'll disagree with you that what is happening in the House right now at the behest of Speaker Pelosi is not relevant to what will happen with Hillary's e-mails and future political maneuvers.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
24,929
9,208
136
Something that’s rarely discussed now—but wasn’t Hillary’s email server set up according to recommendations from Colin Powell—GWB’s SecState?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
Frankly i'm not that sure, especially after seeing the circus in the House.
The job of the Republican party is to increase the wealth of the rich. In order to do this, they need votes to stay in office. In order to get those votes they have to confuse millions of people by playing on their anger and fear. As long as they can be kept angry and targeted at something evil like democrats, no change in conscious perceptions will be possible for them. Everybody wants to be a good person and on the side of good so propaganda is there to confuse people as to what the good is. We have all been trained as children to conform to our guardians standards and told that any deviation would end their love for us. You have identified your worth as a person, I think, a phenomenon called cult behavior, with the idea that you are a good person because you are a member of the good party. This is why Trump uses world like perfect, the best, the greatest. You and not that evil other are Making America Great Again. You are a good person but you have been seduced by a Charlatan.

You have been warned about listening to the devil; he can quote scripture, but you should also remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
Of course the House has nothing to do with the investigation. I'm having potato leek soup and pan-seared ribeye which is at least as relevant.
As having not that long ago made my first potato leek soup after trying my hand at cauliflower soup, I find it actually more relevant.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
Something that’s rarely discussed now—but wasn’t Hillary’s email server set up according to recommendations from Colin Powell—GWB’s SecState?

"Um, not really. Let me count the ways in which the Clinton email setup ≠ the Powell email setup:
1. Clinton exclusively used a private email account to conduct State Department business. Powell did not.

2. Clinton had a private email server, located at her house. Powell did not.
3. The rules governing electronic communication changed considerably — and got more strict — between Powell's time in office and Clinton's. This from the essential WaPo Fact Checker:

After Powell left office in 2005, and through 2011, the State Department’s guidance for private email use was “considerably more detailed and more sophisticated.”
In 2002, there was a new requirement for email users to “determine the significance and value of information created on e-mail systems [and] determine the need to preserve those messages that qualify as records.” Rules for nongovernment information systems for the State Department were established in May 2004, toward the end of Powell’s tenure.
Clinton’s email use should be evaluated in the context of the clearer guidance under her tenure, and the various memorandums “specifically discussing the obligation” for officials to use department systems in most circumstances, the report said. “Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives,” the report said."


That posted, if Powell did anything illegal i'm all for an investigation and a prosecution.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,088
30,442
136

"Um, not really. Let me count the ways in which the Clinton email setup ≠ the Powell email setup:
1. Clinton exclusively used a private email account to conduct State Department business. Powell did not.

2. Clinton had a private email server, located at her house. Powell did not.
3. The rules governing electronic communication changed considerably — and got more strict — between Powell's time in office and Clinton's. This from the essential WaPo Fact Checker:

After Powell left office in 2005, and through 2011, the State Department’s guidance for private email use was “considerably more detailed and more sophisticated.”
In 2002, there was a new requirement for email users to “determine the significance and value of information created on e-mail systems [and] determine the need to preserve those messages that qualify as records.” Rules for nongovernment information systems for the State Department were established in May 2004, toward the end of Powell’s tenure.
Clinton’s email use should be evaluated in the context of the clearer guidance under her tenure, and the various memorandums “specifically discussing the obligation” for officials to use department systems in most circumstances, the report said. “Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives,” the report said."


That posted, if Powell did anything illegal i'm all for an investigation and a prosecution.
Look who suddenly cares about facts and can manage to find them. I wonder how you feel about WaPo fact checking Trump.