FBI agreed to destroy laptops of Clinton aides with immunity deal, lawmaker says
127 replies, posted
[QUOTE=normandie;51148125]corrupt politician who has never produced anything and worked in politics all her life taking other peoples money at gunpoint versus a man who has his name on buildings, has created real value and employment opportunities, and wishes to secure our borders so that illegal immigrants who take advantage of the welfare state dont cause complete economic collapse?
lesser of two evils huh[/QUOTE]
"taking advantage of the welfare state" that's rich, considering illegal immigrants pay more into the system than they take out
Most of the big controversies against Clinton are complete fabrications (Benghazi, the assassinations). There's a reason her popularity among Americans went from one of the national highest to one of its highest at the beginning of the election and it's not because Americans are REALLY passionate about opsec.
If you're left leaning politically then Clinton is a good candidate for you. I'm voting for her not because she's the lesser of two evils (she is that) but also because I agree with almost all of her views. Most Democrats do, even if they say "I'm voting for her even though I don't like her" because honestly saying otherwise is social suicide in most circles.
Is this real democracy?
After they examined them.
Aaaaaaaafter they already looked at the laptops. After.
Details are hard. :saddowns:
[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51150804]Most of the big controversies against Clinton are complete fabrications (Benghazi, the assassinations). There's a reason her popularity among Americans went from one of the national highest to one of its highest at the beginning of the election and it's not because Americans are REALLY passionate about opsec.
If you're left leaning politically then Clinton is a good candidate for you. I'm voting for her not because she's the lesser of two evils (she is that) but also because I agree with almost all of her views. Most Democrats do, even if they say "I'm voting for her even though I don't like her" because honestly saying otherwise is social suicide in most circles.[/QUOTE]
"$0.50 was deposited to your PayPal for this post."
[QUOTE=Claxx;51150971]"$0.50 was deposited to your PayPal for this post."[/QUOTE]
You're right not despising a woman because Fox news told me she has something to do with Benghazi makes me a paid shill :what:
Fuck I wish I could be paid to say nice things about Clinton, I could use the money.
[QUOTE=Tracker;51148938]Hilary is obviously the better choice, but honestly, being better than Donald Trump is not something to brag about. The people in this thread defending either candidate are really stretching for justification or rationale, they're both terrible, Hilary is just ordinary terrible, Trump is catastrophically terrible.
Why are so many Americans actively voting against they're own interests? I don't understand.[/QUOTE]
I honestly blame the media.
they completely ignored the existence of Bernie Sanders and didn't hold Hillary to the fire when she did something wrong, like her husband campaigning in front of voting booths or her calling off her promise to debate more with Bernie, or not having a press conference in hundreds of days, etc...
but more so, they just focused on trump. The stuff he said was bad, so they put all their attention on him because outrage sells these days, and ironically now a ton of people want him as president to "stick it to the system"
because "sticking it to the man" is working [I]SO[/I] well for Brexit right now
[QUOTE=Claxx;51150971]"$0.50 was deposited to your PayPal for this post."[/QUOTE]
CTR doesn't use PayPal, they prefer direct deposit.
[editline]4th October 2016[/editline]
At least thats uh what I've read
[QUOTE=Ridge;51148915]Yes. Please show me anybody that ever said "alt-right" before the Clinton campaign did.[/QUOTE]
it's incredible how quickly this post was utterly destroyed
what an embarrassment
[QUOTE=Claxx;51150971]"$0.50 was deposited to your PayPal for this post."[/QUOTE]
Oh God I wish. But instead I have to debunk bullshit for free.
Yo CTR overlords if you see this hook me up 'aight?
i hear if you shill for trump, you get paid in soundbites from the man himself and clumps of hair
What's stopping them from cloning the hard disk?
[QUOTE=RaTcHeT302;51151170]What's stopping them from cloning the hard disk?[/QUOTE]
If they still had investigative work to do, the FBI will almost certainly have cloned the drives. But the actual drives and hardware they were running from will still need to be disposed so it can't be tampered with after the fact.
Hillary and her team would have been expected to hand over all copies of the data. Not just the machines that were currently running the drives.
Again, basic opsec.
Great shit source that is not only a few days late but misses the more alarming aspects of this:
[quote]The key words: “The lawyer’s practice of law.” What Mr. Comey was referencing here is attorney-client privilege. Ms. Mills was able to extract an immunity deal, avoid answering questions, and sit in on Mrs. Clinton’s FBI interview because she has positioned herself as Hillary’s personal lawyer. Ms. Mills could therefore claim that any conversations or interactions she had with Mrs. Clinton about the private server were protected by attorney-client privilege.
Only here’s the rub: When Ms. Mills worked at the State Department she was not acting as Mrs. Clinton’s personal lawyer. She was the secretary's chief of staff. Any interaction with Mrs. Clinton about her server, or any evidence from that time, should have been fair game for the FBI and the Justice Department.
Ms. Mills was allowed to get away with this “attorney-client privilege” nonsense only because she claimed that she did not know about Mrs. Clinton’s server until after they had both left the State Department. Ergo, no questions about the server.
The FBI has deliberately chosen to accept this lie. The notes of its interview with Ms. Mills credulously states: “Mills did not learn Clinton was using a private email server until after Clinton’s tenure” at State. It added: “Mills stated she was not even sure she knew what a server was at the time.”[/quote]
[url]http://www.wsj.com/articles/jim-comeys-blind-eye-1475191703[/url]
[QUOTE=archangel125;51148514]when what's happened here is standard opsec for sensitive information.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=hexpunK;51151215]Again, basic opsec.[/QUOTE]
Would either of you please provide a source to back up the claim that this is standard procedure? I've handled classified information in a previous job and even for high-level stuff, destruction is only standard infosec practice (btw this has nothing to do with opsec) when transferring classified material from physical media to a classified network. Archived classified material that may have future value (like evidence) can be retained in classified storage until it undergoes mandatory declassification review. Unclassified material not protected by FOUO or other SBU dissemination controls has no specific requirement for destruction, and given that the contents of the laptops are certainly not relevant to national security or originating from government systems they should be straight unclass.
[I]Especially[/I] given the legal implications of the information there is no reason why they should destroy the laptops rather than retain them for possible subpoena. Looking at the facts I feel pretty confident in saying that this is a deal to ensure that any further secrets stay dead and have no chance of coming to light in the future. If the FBI read anything incriminating on those laptops before they were destroyed, they can't do anything with it.
After Comey released his explanation for why Clinton isn't being prosecuted I've softened on my opinion of her and the email scandal, but this is scummy as fuck no matter how you look at it.
It's simple, you don't let compromised classified information laying around. You destroy it. You don't selectively destroy information, you destroy all of it.
do i vote for a corrupt-to-hell dirty lying politician, or do i vote for an insane racist flipflop nutjob?
america is going to die
[QUOTE=aznz888;51151481]do i vote for a corrupt-to-hell dirty lying politician, or do i vote for an insane racist flipflop nutjob?
america is going to die[/QUOTE]
The latter is also a corrupt as fuck liar
[QUOTE=Code3Response;51151470]It's simple, you don't let compromised classified information laying around. You destroy it. You don't selectively destroy information, you destroy all of it.[/QUOTE]
No, that's bullshit. If you have classified information on a device, the device automatically takes on the classification level of the highest-classified info on it. That's it.
If you have an unclassified personal laptop, and I send you a TS//SCI document, it doesn't have to be thrown in the incinerator- the laptop just becomes considered TS//SCI pending declassification review, and has to be stored in a SCIF with appropriate security safeguards (disabling wireless, installing write blockers, etc). That's not a big deal for an agency like the FBI, [I]especially[/I] if the laptop has significance as potential evidence.
If anyone is going to repeat the claim that destroying the laptops is standard procedure, back it up with a source. Everyone here is just pulling stuff out of their collective asses based on what seems consistent with a Hollywood depiction of how classified information works.
[QUOTE=aznz888;51151481]do i vote for a corrupt-to-hell dirty lying politician, or do i vote for an insane racist flipflop nutjob?
america is going to die[/QUOTE]
You do know Trump isn't the only person you can vote for?
[QUOTE=catbarf;51151601]No, that's bullshit. If you have classified information on a device, the device automatically takes on the classification level of the highest-classified info on it. That's it.
If you have an unclassified personal laptop, and I send you a TS//SCI document, it doesn't have to be thrown in the incinerator- the laptop just becomes considered TS//SCI pending declassification review, and has to be stored in a SCIF with appropriate security safeguards (disabling wireless, installing write blockers, etc). That's not a big deal for an agency like the FBI, [I]especially[/I] if the laptop has significance as potential evidence.
If anyone is going to repeat the claim that destroying the laptops is standard procedure, back it up with a source. Everyone here is just pulling stuff out of their collective asses based on what seems consistent with a Hollywood depiction of how classified information works.[/QUOTE]
I'm actually having a hard time corroborating the totality of the claim to begin with since all the sites I can find with the article all use the same damn wording which comes from one persons letter.
Maybe it was part of their deal. Maybe the FBI didnt want a FOIA on it. Maybe its normal. Maybe its just a republican going after anything they can to justify their anger, just like in Benghazi.
[QUOTE=Cructo;51148112]Worst part is that she's ahead in the polls. Future looks bad for America[/QUOTE]
I'd say lesser of 2 evils.
Not by much but by enough
[QUOTE=viperfan7;51151749]I'd say lesser of 2 evils.
Not by much but by enough[/QUOTE]
It shouldn't be this way...
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51148090]But Donald Trump is a racist so look away!
I swear, a large chunk of the Hillary camp purposely puts their heads in the sand when stories like this surface. Just because you support a candidate doesn't mean you have to lie/obscure true facts about them and their corruption.[/QUOTE]
the trump camp will also bury its heads in the fucking sand and find some asinine childish excuse to explain why they're voting for a man who will basically eat the entire united states.
[editline]4th October 2016[/editline]
the man did an endorsement for pizza hut. he is literally satan.
[QUOTE=Van-man;51151861]It shouldn't be this way...[/QUOTE]
It will always be this way, the chances of there being a candidate that agrees with you on everything is astronomical.
i work in a small government office and we have to destroy anything that has any information on it once its been replaced. computers, documents, hard drives, everything. i don't think it's a stretch to say that maybe the secretary of state might have a similar protocol
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.