• Clinton to meet FBI Saturday
    144 replies, posted
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50631916]That's not irony. Democracy is mob rule. Due process is a republic[/QUOTE] I think you misunderstand the term Democracy, a direct democracy is mob rule yes. A republican government is still a democracy, its just representative instead of a direct Democracy. Just like how the UK is technically a Democracy, even though they have a monarch, because they elect their officials. So your fight against Democracy is a fight against Direct Democracy, something that hasn't legitimately existed on a grand Scale in forever
[QUOTE=Native Hunter;50631962]I think you misunderstand the term Democracy, a direct democracy is mob rule yes. A republican government is still a democracy, its just representative instead of a direct Democracy. Just like how the UK is technically a Democracy, even though they have a monarch, because they elect their officials. So your fight against Democracy is a fight against Direct Democracy, something that hasn't legitimately existed on a grand Scale in forever[/QUOTE] Democratic republics yes, but a republic is rule of law above everything else. Democracy is will of the people. Republics are better because they protect the right of minorities and those accused of crimes. Sometimes nobody's happy, and that's better than the majority getting what they want
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;50631885]This. As a submariner, I'm regularly trusted with top secret material. If I was found to have some of it on my personal computer, whether it's hooked up to the internet or not, no matter what the purpose of me having it there is, I'd get my peepee slapped so fucking hard. My entire life ripped apart by the investigation. Everyone I've ever talked to interrogated by agents showing up at their door asking if I shared TS info with them. Following all of that, a wonderful sentence to Leavenworth making big rocks into little rocks for a long time. Top Secret information is information deemed to cause [I]exceptionally grave[/I] (not exaggerating, that's part of the definition drilled into our heads) damage to national security if it gets into the wrong hands. Nothing insignificant is deemed top secret. For example, submarine operating speeds, frequencies, procedures, all the little details about our boats the enemy could use to easily defeat us if they knew, all classified SECRET. That should put into perspective just how fucking severe top secret info is and how ultra buttfucked anyone found keeping it on a personal unsecure server should be.[/QUOTE] Took the words right out of my mouth. We'd be fucked in every single hole at once with family size soup cans if we were to pull this shit.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50630641]I'm confident they'll find no wrongdoing[/QUOTE] So is everyone else. The difference is most of us wouldn't accept that for the horse shit it is. If I'm not mistaken, we already do know that she had vulnerable (Top-secret?) info on her personal server - for someone like Maverick or Cocacola above me, that alone would be life-ruining. Same goes, I imagine, for disregarding information security protocols in the first place, regardless of whether anything sensitive was at risk. The question, for me, isn't so much as to whether she's guilty of anything further, but why she's been allowed to continue as normal, let alone run a presidential campaign, when anyone else in her situation would've been detained a long time ago. The answer to that question is quite obvious; the fact you're either wilfully ignorant or even accepting of these facts, yet still supporting her, makes you complicit in furthering corruption in the American political system.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50630641]I'm confident they'll find no wrongdoing[/QUOTE] Of course they won't Hillary is privileged. Not "whit priveleg :(" privileged, insanely wealthy, oligarch, court-nepotism privileged.
If she gets out of all of this without going to the clink, then I hope some brave motherfucker does what is needed to be done to Shillary and mexicanWallbuilder I'm not advocating for anything drastic to be done, just hoping it is done. [editline]2nd July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;50630312]The point isn't that their crimes are comparable it's that being under investigation doesn't actually mean you are guilty of anything. It certainly raises an eyebrow but if she is found not guilty by the law then the investigation shouldn't be held against her. That isn't to say that she clearly failed to meet security guidelines, it's just that not enough evidence was found to prosecute her in a court of law.[/QUOTE] Alright, you do not see the numerous blantant security violations and willful deletion of important emails? [editline]2nd July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=proboardslol;50630641]I'm confident they'll find no wrongdoing[/QUOTE] You are politically blind to not see the crimes here. Oh wait, why am I arguing with someone who gets paid 0.05$ per shitpost about how hillary is innocent and totes perfect
[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;50633238]You don't find it worrying at all that your next president might be a person who has no idea how to store confidental information safely?[/QUOTE] It has more to do with her willingness, rather then her ability to securely deal with confidential information. If the FBI pulls up an email of the issue being addressed to her and she subsequently dismisses the issue, its a whole different story.
[QUOTE=Cold;50633545]It has more to do with her willingness, rather then her ability to securely deal with confidential information. If the FBI pulls up an email of the issue being addressed to her and she subsequently dismisses the issue, its a whole different story.[/QUOTE] Judicial Watch already pulled up testimony of this. Also testimony that other staffers were told not to bring the issue up again.
[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;50633238]You don't find it worrying at all that your next president might be a person who has no idea how to store confidental information safely?[/QUOTE] She knows she just didn't bother to give them a choice, the WH tech people have already said they would not have given her permission to setup anything and the secure email system they had was unworkable for every day use apparently. Also she has more experience with handling secure information period than her competition
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50630641]I'm confident they'll find no wrongdoing[/QUOTE] I'm confident youve been hiding under a rock. Theres already tons of leaked evidence that is already enough to get her on mishandling of classified info
[QUOTE=Cliff2;50633633]Judicial Watch already pulled up testimony of this. Also testimony that other staffers were told not to bring the issue up again.[/QUOTE] Any link, i had a look on their website and tried to google for it, but couldn't find it. The only thing i found was 2 testimonies that claimed her using a private server 'din't ring any bells' on the Judicial Watch website itself.
how the hell she can get away with all these?
[QUOTE=testinglol;50633768]how the hell she can get away with all these?[/QUOTE] Excess amounts of money and political power.
[QUOTE=Cold;50633545]It has more to do with her willingness, rather then her ability to securely deal with confidential information. If the FBI pulls up an email of the issue being addressed to her and she subsequently dismisses the issue, its a whole different story.[/QUOTE] We already have leaks of her intentionally stripping security headers from documents and sending them insecurely. I don't know what else you could need.
[QUOTE=niiiiiiiiok;50632970]You are politically blind to not see the crimes here. Oh wait, why am I arguing with someone who gets paid 0.05$ per shitpost about how hillary is innocent and totes perfect[/QUOTE] I personally don't think what Hillary did was illegal. Having state department files on her private server was not illegal when she did it. In fact, Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice before her did it as well (though, admittedly, Rice didn't use email much). John Kerry is the first to use state department-only servers and that's because they changed the regulations after Hillary left office. The issue is not that she had secret files on the private server, but that she deleted many thousands of emails which she claims to be personal, and that she did not follow the proper procedures to catalog state department correspondence so that it can be accessed by FOIA requests. The only difference between Clinton and her predecessors is that she used her OWN server, whereas her predecessors used commercially-available email addresses (such as gmail). You people are focusing on this "private server" thing as a matter of security, when you should be focusing on the blatant fact that Hillary could've been using the private server to mask that she used her authority and office of the secretary of state for her own personal gain (i.e: to elicit donations for the Clinton foundation), and particularly to avoid FOIA requests. What is more likely than there being 30,000 deleted state secrets, is that the 30,000 deleted emails all [I]are[/I] private, but that she used her power as secretary of state to elicit bribes from foreign governments for the Clinton foundation. I'm not politically blind, I'm just apathetic. And I only get paid $0.05 for every post that I can get facepunchers to reluctantly agree with despite reservations about her. We over here at the Shillary campaign are focusing on the "at least she's not trump" angle.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50633913][B]I personally don't think what Hillary did was illegal[/B]. Having state department files on her private server was not illegal when she did it. In fact, Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice before her did it as well (though, admittedly, Rice didn't use email much). John Kerry is the first to use state department-only servers and that's because they changed the regulations after Hillary left office. [B]The issue is not that she had secret files on the private server[/B], but that she deleted many thousands of emails which she claims to be personal, and that she did not follow the proper procedures to catalog state department correspondence so that it can be accessed by FOIA requests. The only difference between Clinton and her predecessors is that she used her OWN server, whereas her predecessors used commercially-available email addresses (such as gmail). You people are focusing on this "private server" thing as a matter of security, when you should be focusing on the blatant fact that Hillary could've been using the private server to mask that she used her authority and office of the secretary of state for her own personal gain (i.e: to elicit donations for the Clinton foundation), and particularly to avoid FOIA requests. What is more likely than there being 30,000 deleted state secrets, is that the 30,000 deleted emails all [I]are[/I] private, but that she used her power as secretary of state to elicit bribes from foreign governments for the Clinton foundation. I'm not politically blind, I'm just apathetic. And I only get paid $0.05 for every post that I can get facepunchers to reluctantly agree with despite reservations about her. We over here at the Shillary campaign are focusing on the "at least she's not trump" angle.[/QUOTE] The issue is that she sent Above Top Secret (Classified at birth) info unencrypted on a server that is easily hackable. Not only did she break the law by mishandling classified info, but she lied under oath which is perjury. If what clinton did wasn't illegal, why have CIA officers and military members done years in prison for violations much less serious?
Powel and Rice never sued their other emails exclusively for starters, and it has been proven she's had top secret information on her unclassified server, [I]which is illegal[/I] like, how much clearer does this has to be made, or are you going to keep drinking the kool-aid?
[QUOTE=cody8295;50633937]The issue is that she sent Above Top Secret (Classified at birth) info unencrypted on a server that is easily hackable. Not only did she break the law by mishandling classified info, but she lied under oath which is perjury. If what clinton did wasn't illegal, why have CIA officers and military members done years in prison for violations much less serious?[/QUOTE] Because laws for the CIA and military are different than the laws for the state department. Can someone find me a citation that says that having state department secrets on a private server is illegal?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50634017]Because laws for the CIA and military are different than the laws for the state department. Can someone find me a citation that says that having state department secrets on a private server is illegal?[/QUOTE] Perjuy isn't illegal in the state department, huh? That's good to know!
[QUOTE=srobins;50634025]Perjuy isn't illegal in the state department, huh? That's good to know![/QUOTE] You're telling me that having classified emails on a private server is perjury?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50634038]You're telling me that having classified emails on a private server is perjury?[/QUOTE] I thought it was in violation to the Freedom of Information Act or something. She kept classified documents on a private hackable server that apparently didn't have a password (I read that somewhere don't hold me onto that) She's just not confident in this day and age - before she could get away with it, but with the stream of information and the internet it's too hard for her and people like her to hide their dirt.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50634038]You're telling me that having classified emails on a private server is perjury?[/QUOTE] Lying under oath (which she has done numerous times) is perjury. Having above top secret info on a private server is absolutely illegal, it's supposed to be maintained through a very secure line of communication and Hillary knowingly broke that chain. Did you even read the IG report?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50633913]I personally don't think what Hillary did was illegal. Having state department files on her private server was not illegal when she did it. In fact, Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice before her did it as well (though, admittedly, Rice didn't use email much). John Kerry is the first to use state department-only servers and that's because they changed the regulations after Hillary left office. The issue is not that she had secret files on the private server, but that she deleted many thousands of emails which she claims to be personal, and that she did not follow the proper procedures to catalog state department correspondence so that it can be accessed by FOIA requests. The only difference between Clinton and her predecessors is that she used her OWN server, whereas her predecessors used commercially-available email addresses (such as gmail). You people are focusing on this "private server" thing as a matter of security, when you should be focusing on the blatant fact that Hillary could've been using the private server to mask that she used her authority and office of the secretary of state for her own personal gain (i.e: to elicit donations for the Clinton foundation), and particularly to avoid FOIA requests. What is more likely than there being 30,000 deleted state secrets, is that the 30,000 deleted emails all [I]are[/I] private, but that she used her power as secretary of state to elicit bribes from foreign governments for the Clinton foundation. I'm not politically blind, I'm just apathetic. And I only get paid $0.05 for every post that I can get facepunchers to reluctantly agree with despite reservations about her. We over here at the Shillary campaign are focusing on the "at least she's not trump" angle.[/QUOTE] You should compete in the Olympics with the amount of proverbial gymnastics you do to rationalise your defence of such a slimeball. "The issue is not that she had secret files on the private server" So you acknowledge she did, yet it seems you find no issue with the fact she had [I]secret documents[/I] on an [I]unsecured[/I] server? What's the point in designating a document as secret if there's no recourse for when, inadvertently or not, someone compromises the systems keeping that information secret?
[QUOTE=BioWaster;50634052]I thought it was in violation to the Freedom of Information Act or something. She kept classified documents on a private hackable server that apparently didn't have a password (I read that somewhere don't hold me onto that) She's just not confident in this day and age - before she could get away with it, but with the stream of information and the internet it's too hard for her and people like her to hide their dirt.[/QUOTE] Perjury is lying under oath. The law that she may have broken is the Federal Records Act: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Use_of_private_server_for_government_business[/url] [quote] According to Department spokesperson Harf, use by government officials of personal email for government business is permissible under the Federal Records Act, so long as relevant official communications, including all work-related emails, are preserved by the agency.[29] The Act (which was amended in late 2014 after Clinton left office to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days) requires agencies to retain all official communications, including all work-related emails, and stipulates that government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.[29] NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained, require that they must be maintained "by the agency" and "readily found", and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress".[29] Section 1924 of Title 18 of the United States Code addresses the deletion and retention of classified documents, under which "knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine, or up to a year in prison.[29][/quote] And by the FRA, a private server is not an "unauthorized location". What you all should be looking at, and I'm going to put this in bold because I don't believe anybody reads my posts past the first sentence, is: [B]Hillary Clinton may have used her position as the secretary of state to elicit donations for the Clinton foundation. This is about the FOIA, not about storing classified information on insecure servers. You should all be worried about THAT.[/B] This is coming from a Clinton supporter. You need to stop focusing on something which will ultimately land with a slap on the wrist. if the 30,000 deleted emails show that she elicited donations in exchange for favorability towards other countries, she could go away for a long time [editline]2nd July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Morbo!!!;50634084]You should compete in the Olympics with the amount of proverbial gymnastics you do to rationalise your defence of such a slimeball. "The issue is not that she had secret files on the private server" So you acknowledge she did, yet it seems you find no issue with the fact she had [I]secret documents[/I] on an [I]unsecured[/I] server? What's the point in designating a document as secret if there's no recourse for when, inadvertently or not, someone compromises the systems keeping that information secret?[/QUOTE] Who you should be upset with is Federal regulations which allowed it to happen, not the person who did what was allowable by law
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50634017] Can someone find me a citation that says that having [I]state department secrets [/I]on a private server is illegal?[/QUOTE] [quote=State Department Inspector General]These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.[/quote] [url]https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and_oig_regarding_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf[/url] like, are you brain dead. how can you think to yourself that mishandling classified information ([B]that is classified at the highest level, Top Secret[/B]) is not illegal. and infact, it is! [quote]Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.[/quote] so even if it was unintentional she should be fucked. the other sections of that law cover if it was purposeful mishandling :) [url]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793[/url]
[QUOTE=cody8295;50634061]Lying under oath (which she has done numerous times) is perjury. Having above top secret info on a private server is absolutely illegal, it's supposed to be maintained through a very secure line of communication and Hillary knowingly broke that chain. Did you even read the IG report?[/QUOTE] There's a difference between the law and state department regulations
Eh, she shouldn't be above the law just because her husband was the prez and she's been a career politician with connections for 20 some odd years and no matter how much people try to spin it that's what the whole situation LOOKS like. Doesn't matter if that judge Bill met gives the all clear. Just makes people mad.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50634110]There's a difference between the law and state department regulations[/QUOTE] And the IG report makes clear that she broke both department regulations and federal law. What don't you understand?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50634110]There's a difference between the law and state department regulations[/QUOTE] State dept. regulations shouldn't override or put someone above the law.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50634110]There's a difference between the law and state department regulations[/QUOTE] Are you daft? Lying under oath is perjury regardless of who you are or who you work for. Welcome to the real world.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.