• F.B.I. Releases Hillary Clinton Email Investigation Files
    51 replies, posted
[quote]WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton told F.B.I. investigators during a three-and-a-half hour interview in July that she had used a personal email server as secretary of state “out of convenience” and did not remember anyone raising legal concerns about the practice, according to documents released Friday. Mrs. Clinton also said that she “did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system,” the F.B.I. documents say. “She relied on State officials to use their judgment when emailing her and could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received at her email address,” they say. Her comments were largely consistent with what she has said publicly about the email controversy in recent weeks – although Republicans maintain that she has contradicted her earlier testimony to Congress on a number of key points. On Friday, the F.B.I. released its interview with Mrs. Clinton, along with a memorandum summarizing the investigation into her use of a private email server that contained classified information. The New York Times is reviewing the documents and will update this story with more information.[/quote] [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0]NY Times[/url] [url=https://static01.nyt.com/packages/pdf/politics/hillaryclintonfbi.pdf]Said document if you wish to take a look at it.[/url]
The secretary of state relies on state officials to tell her what's wrong and what's right. Eat dick you old hag, you didn't leave another email for people to send shit to.
I fully expect one discrepancy after the other to come drifting to the top of the sludge pool...
[QUOTE=Pops;50990018]The secretary of state relies on state officials to tell her what's wrong and what's right. Eat dick you old hag, you didn't leave another email for people to send shit to.[/QUOTE] No, she relies on other people to have common sense about what information they send to her via email.
[QUOTE=Riller;50990161]No, she relies on other people to have common sense about what information they send to her via email.[/QUOTE] It's a nice way of saying "it's everyone else's fault if my private unsecured mail server had classified information on it." Despite her using no other email account while holding the position of the Secretary of State. I can't believe a Presidential nominee is pulling stunts I expect out of five-year-olds.
[QUOTE=Cructo;50990159]Democracy doesn't work like that, "fam"[/QUOTE] It should when we have approve rates of both of them so fucking low, it would be a better idea to vote in a corpse.
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;50990233]It should when we have approve rates of both of them so fucking low, it would be a better idea to vote in a corpse.[/QUOTE] A corpse can only leak toxic gases. There's no chance of leaking e-mails, or classified documents, or pandering bullshit about how they totally [I]keep hot sauce around their your purse, black people![/I] *wink* *nudge*
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;50990233]It should when we have approve rates of both of them so fucking low, it would be a better idea to vote in a corpse.[/QUOTE] They won their primaries tho. [QUOTE=wauterboi;50990337]A corpse can only leak toxic gases. There's no chance of leaking e-mails, or classified documents, or pandering bullshit about how you totally [I]keep hot sauce around in your purse, black people![/I].[/QUOTE] Didn't this one actually turn out to be true and Clinton just so happens to be a hot sauce fanatic. [editline]2nd September 2016[/editline] I've lived in the south all my life and I never knew hot sauce was a black thing until people started saying she was pandering to blacks with that comment.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;50990182]I can't believe a Presidential nominee is pulling stunts I expect out of five-year-olds.[/QUOTE] You're just now getting surprised by this kind of behavior? You're over 12 months too late.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;50990182]Despite her using no other email account while holding the position of the Secretary of State.[/QUOTE] I'm gonna need a source on that, because I'm calling bullshit on Sec State not having a classified email account to be able to access SIPRnet and JWICS. If people sent classified email through unclassified email protocols, then yeah, that's kinda their fault. What would implicate Clinton would be if she knowingly was the one removing classified information from a classified system and putting it on an unclassified email system, and that's not clear.
[QUOTE=catbarf;50990504]I'm gonna need a source on that, because I'm calling bullshit on Sec State not having a classified email account to be able to access SIPRnet and JWICS. If people sent classified email through unclassified email protocols, then yeah, that's kinda their fault. What would implicate Clinton would be if she knowingly was the one removing classified information from a classified system and putting it on an unclassified email system, and that's not clear.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1524294"]"Clinton never used a government account that was set up for her, instead continuing to rely on her private server until leaving office."[/URL] She insisted on using her BlackBerry and private email server despite being told she should use a state.gov address. Now she's saying it's everyone else's fault if they used her private email account for work. What was anyone supposed to do? [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1518047"]Strangely, finding Hillary's emails to her State Department IT Director has also been a problem even though it should all be recorded.[/URL]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50990346]They won their primaries tho. Didn't this one actually turn out to be true and Clinton just so happens to be a hot sauce fanatic. [editline]2nd September 2016[/editline] I've lived in the south all my life and I never knew hot sauce was a black thing until people started saying she was pandering to blacks with that comment.[/QUOTE] It did actually turn out to be true, but people were saying she was pandering to black people because Beyonce had just said the same thing like a week before. IIRC anyway
[QUOTE=Riller;50990161]No, she relies on other people to have common sense about what information they send to her via email.[/QUOTE] And yet she never told people to cut that shit out. She's just as culpable if not more.
[QUOTE=Riller;50990161]No, she relies on other people to have common sense about what information they send to her via email.[/QUOTE] Do you think her subordinates are going to refuse to correspond with the Secretary of State because her email domain isn't the same as hers? I mean, they shouldn't have, but the fact that you're actually letting her get away with shifting blame from herself, [I]the person who created this entire issue in the first place for the sake of her own laziness and/or ability to evade surveillance and accountability for her correspondence[/I], to her subordinates in the State Department is just dumb. [editline]3rd September 2016[/editline] It's mind boggling the lengths to which people are going to defend her actions by any means necessary when this [I]entire situation[/I] would have been avoided if she had just [I]followed the rules in the first place[/I]. How hard is this to grasp?
George Washington warned us against political parties Too bad we didn't listen, because now we're stuck with the shittiest candidates you could ever find
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;50990150]Can we just reset this election? Both of the candidates are just the worst.[/QUOTE] Resets cannot occur unless something traumatic happens. Ie. Death of one parties candidate, someone being impeached, ect. In otherwords, unless someone went full-retard and killed Trump and Hillary within the same day, leaving Johnson and Stein, not much can be done really. [editline]2nd September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TeamEnternode;50991767]George Washington warned us against political parties Too bad we didn't listen, because now we're stuck with the shittiest candidates you could ever find[/QUOTE] I'm hopeful that one of these days, we have an amendment which effectively abolishes political parties.
The bit about Collin powell specifically telling her not to tell the public about using a blackberry is interesting.
[QUOTE=TeamEnternode;50991767]George Washington warned us against political parties Too bad we didn't listen, because now we're stuck with the shittiest candidates you could ever find[/QUOTE] Ironically enough, the most straightforward solution would be to make the parties official so you can vote proportionally and presidents indirectly :v:
[QUOTE=Cructo;50990159]Democracy doesn't work like that, "fam"[/QUOTE] Sure it does. At least, it can. The American Democratic system is not "democracy" as a whole, at this point "democracy" just means "people vote" which can be put into any number of systems, including one with a theoretical mulligan or a better voting system than first past the post.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;50990545][URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1524294"]"Clinton never used a government account that was set up for her, instead continuing to rely on her private server until leaving office."[/URL] She insisted on using her BlackBerry and private email server despite being told she should use a state.gov address. Now she's saying it's everyone else's fault if they used her private email account for work. What was anyone supposed to do? [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1518047"]Strangely, finding Hillary's emails to her State Department IT Director has also been a problem even though it should all be recorded.[/URL][/QUOTE] You didn't substantiate your claim in the slightest. Clinton never used a government account [I]on an unclassified email server[/I] that was provided for her, instead choosing to use her own. That doesn't mean that she didn't have a classified email server internal to the State Dept which is where all classified info should have stayed. [quote]"it's everyone else's fault if my private unsecured mail server had classified information on it."[/quote] Yeah, if someone else sent [I]classified[/I] files to an [I]unclassified[/I] server, then it doesn't matter whether that server was hers or provided by the State Department- the person sending the files is the one who fucked up because you have to jump through a lot of hoops to get classified data off a classified network, regardless of who owns the unclassified network you send it to. The instant classified information was removed from a classified network, it would constitute a security breach on the part of the originator before they ever sent it. Any classified files should have been sent to her classified email address through the internal State Dept network that they originated on. I'm normally the last person to defend Clinton but this is grasping at straws. You're trying to make it seem like Hillary only used the one email account and so all her staffers were forced to send classified information to an unclassified server, and that's simply nonsense. The fact that only a handful of the thousands of emails were classified, most of them retroactively reclassified, is enough proof that her server isn't where classified emails were being sent during her term as Secretary of State.
[QUOTE=catbarf;50992121]You're trying to make it seem like Hillary only used the one email account and so all her staffers were forced to send classified information to an unclassified server[/QUOTE] that's exactly what happened, read the fucking document.
[QUOTE=Pops;50992578]that's exactly what happened, read the fucking document.[/QUOTE] You've found somewhere in the document where it says Clinton dismantled all [i]classified[/i] systems she had access to, created a security stepdown procedure to force anyone emailing her from a secure network to exfiltrate it from the system contrary to classified material handling regs, and then somehow did her job as Secretary of State while only receiving a handful of classified emails ever? Or are you just saying dumb shit because you didn't actually read before hitting reply?
whats more astounding is that hillary used a powerpc mac as a server in 2007 [url]http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/09/fbi-clintons-first-e-mail-server-was-a-power-mac-tower/[/url]
[QUOTE=catbarf;50992121] Yeah, if someone else sent [I]classified[/I] files to an [I]unclassified[/I] server, then it doesn't matter whether that server was hers or provided by the State Department- the person sending the files is the one who fucked up because you have to jump through a lot of hoops to get classified data off a classified network, regardless of who owns the unclassified network you send it to.[/QUOTE] Dude, what? If you're working for the secretary of state, and she sends you an email and you have to reply back to her, and her server is on her fucking atari 2600 hidden in her basement, and you have no way to know about it, how are you accountable for sending classified information to this jalopy server, when it belongs to and you answer to one of the highest ranking US officials in the US goverment? That's beyond absurd
[QUOTE=TeamEnternode;50991767]George Washington warned us against political parties Too bad we didn't listen, because now we're stuck with the shittiest candidates you could ever find[/QUOTE] how do you even ban political parties? wouldn't that conflict with the first and most important of the amendments in america? the one about free speech or something
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50990346]They won their primaries tho. Didn't this one actually turn out to be true and Clinton just so happens to be a hot sauce fanatic. [editline]2nd September 2016[/editline] I've lived in the south all my life and I never knew hot sauce was a black thing until people started saying she was pandering to blacks with that comment.[/QUOTE] Without meaning to go off-topic, it's the swiftness to mention that she carries around hot sauce and the lack of explanation, combined with the follow-up joke about pandering to black people. She could have legitimately brought the conversation around her fanaticism for just a little bit, talking about her love for spice and specific brands, but instead it seems like she blurted that out to try and seem more relatable - kinda like a "oh thank god I actually carry something that'll help me in this situation" moment. I mean, I'm half-Mexican and I've lived in primarily Mexican neighborhoods for 17 years of my life. Ignoring the fact carrying around salsa in your purse is silly, if I interviewed Clinton and asked her what she carries around in her bag and she just blurts out "salsa", I'd think of that answer as being super dull and possibly pandering. And if I inquired about it and she said, "is it working?", I'd think of it as both confirmed and shameless. If she instead told me about her trips to the local outdoor Swap Meet to grab fresh farmer's market Pico De Gallo and ceviche and then led that into a discussion about being part of her local community, that's a far more interesting and more believable answer. [editline]3rd September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;50993239]how do you even ban political parties? wouldn't that conflict with the first and most important of the amendments in america? the one about free speech or something[/QUOTE] Even if political parties were abolished, we'd probably end up with consistent enough patterns in voting and politics that there might as well be political parties. I think we'd end up with the same two view points, if not maybe an extra one here or there, because politics gets simplified for the sake of brevity all the time. I think it isn't because of the Democratic and Republican party that we have pro choice and pro life - I think that's just an end result of the two main positions you can have on such an issue. More spending vs. less spending, state rights vs. federal law, etc. There are more stances but they're so fringe that even without the parties we have nowadays, our history has shown that our parties have had predecessors that basically thought and did the same thing, and I would imagine that people would still listen to the same people and their affiliates, effectively emulating a party. [B]EDIT:[/B] On second thought, as dumb as it is, GamerGate is a brilliant example of how a two-party exists in spite of the lack of parties. [I]Are you GamerGate or anti-GamerGate?[/I] [I]You're with us or without us.[/I] You can't really go mid-way on that at all, and there's really only two stances that most people will recognize, save for the apathetic "fuck both sides" choice that's consistent with the political party system we have nowadays.
[QUOTE=Cructo;50990159]Democracy doesn't work like that, "fam"[/QUOTE] What's going on right now isn't really a prime example of a working democracy.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;50993592]Without meaning to go off-topic, it's the swiftness to mention that she carries around hot sauce and the lack of explanation, combined with the follow-up joke about pandering to black people. She could have legitimately brought the conversation around her fanaticism for just a little bit, talking about her love for spice and specific brands, but instead it seems like she blurted that out to try and seem more relatable - kinda like a "oh thank god I actually carry something that'll help me in this situation" moment. I mean, I'm half-Mexican and I've lived in primarily Mexican neighborhoods for 17 years of my life. Ignoring the fact carrying around salsa in your purse is silly, if I interviewed Clinton and asked her what she carries around in her bag and she just blurts out "salsa", I'd think of that answer as being super dull and possibly pandering. And if I inquired about it and she said, "is it working?", I'd think of it as both confirmed and shameless. If she instead told me about her trips to the local outdoor Swap Meet to grab fresh farmer's market Pico De Gallo and ceviche and then led that into a discussion about being part of her local community, that's a far more interesting and more believable answer. [editline]3rd September 2016[/editline] Even if political parties were abolished, we'd probably end up with consistent enough patterns in voting and politics that there might as well be political parties. I think we'd end up with the same two view points, if not maybe an extra one here or there, because politics gets simplified for the sake of brevity all the time. I think it isn't because of the Democratic and Republican party that we have pro choice and pro life - I think that's just an end result of the two main positions you can have on such an issue. More spending vs. less spending, state rights vs. federal law, etc. There are more stances but they're so fringe that even without the parties we have nowadays, our history has shown that our parties have had predecessors that basically thought and did the same thing, and I would imagine that people would still listen to the same people and their affiliates, effectively emulating a party. [B]EDIT:[/B] On second thought, as dumb as it is, GamerGate is a brilliant example of how a two-party exists in spite of the lack of parties. [I]Are you GamerGate or anti-GamerGate?[/I] [I]You're with us or without us.[/I] You can't really go mid-way on that at all, and there's really only two stances that most people will recognize, save for the apathetic "fuck both sides" choice that's consistent with the political party system we have nowadays.[/QUOTE] It's a pretty common thing for people who travel a lot to bring hot sauce with them in case the food tastes like shit, I do the same whenever I'm flying somewhere. Not sure why you think it's some grand conspiracy invented by Clinton.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50991968] I'm hopeful that one of these days, we have an amendment which effectively abolishes political parties.[/QUOTE] We actually already have several, but some of them are directly responsible for the 2 party system since it didn't work as it should. [editline]3rd September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;50993239]how do you even ban political parties? wouldn't that conflict with the first and most important of the amendments in america? the one about free speech or something[/QUOTE] No, it woudnt... the individuals are free to say what they want, just not to organise politically, since that would fall under corruption according to some founding fathers.
[QUOTE=Cructo;50990159]Democracy doesn't work like that, "fam"[/QUOTE] This statement is so broken it's not even funny. If the will of the people was to redo the election then it would be undemocratic to NOT do so.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.