Mainecat Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 I more than anyone would like t see her go down and Sanders take her spot as the nominee but I have a sane mind and know if all Petraus for admitting he sold secrets and got only a fine, Clinton wont get touched on this. Maybe bring up Whitewater next of the murderer she represented decades ago or some other idiotic right wing menu item. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 6 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said: Least it be fawking her up some. How come of all the people i have seen interview her on tv..nobody has brought up the FOIL deal? You're watching the wrong news I have seen that mentioned multiple times Barry has her back she won't be indicted his legacy is on the line after all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mileage Psycho Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Anler said: The private email server is used for one reason. It is unethical at the very least. It was stupid especially knowing that she was going to make a run for the WH. 1 hour ago, jtssrx said: She broke the law. She transmitted classified information on a private unsecured server. I am an IT professional. I worked in banking for years. I now manage a team of techs for a large MSP. We also own a data center. I deal with auditors on a weekly basis. Don't try to fucking tell me what I know. She's built the server to hide what she was doing. Anyone who thinks differently is a lying to themselves Name the law she broke JT, I'm thinking that's going to be tough for an "IT professional" such as yourself only because the FBI is spending untold resources and time trying find out if she broke any laws, and then there was the 80 million spent on Whitewater 20 years when they found out about a semen stained dress. When you have something solid JT, get back to us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 33 minutes ago, Mileage Psycho said: It was stupid especially knowing that she was going to make a run for the WH. Name the law she broke JT, I'm thinking that's going to be tough for an "IT professional" such as yourself only because the FBI is spending untold resources and time trying find out if she broke any laws, and then there was the 80 million spent on Whitewater 20 years when they found out about a semen stained dress. When you have something solid JT, get back to us Just think of all the taxpayer money that would be saved if the Clintons just told the truth, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtssrx Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 2 hours ago, Mainecat said: Again what law did she break? Report? WTF? Better charge Condi Rice too. She signed multiple nondisclosure statements. She sent out classified information. Please take your blinders off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Yep..just what you posted in another thread. It is a Federal Crime to negligently handle classified information under United States Code (USC) 18 section 1924. It is a Federal Class A Felony under USC 18 section 798. Hillary certified under oath to a federal judge that she had handed over to the state department all of her emails, which she clearly did not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 2 hours ago, Mileage Psycho said: It was stupid especially knowing that she was going to make a run for the WH. Name the law she broke JT, I'm thinking that's going to be tough for an "IT professional" such as yourself only because the FBI is spending untold resources and time trying find out if she broke any laws, and then there was the 80 million spent on Whitewater 20 years when they found out about a semen stained dress. When you have something solid JT, get back to us I will wait too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtssrx Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 28 minutes ago, Mainecat said: I will wait too. You two are in denial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted May 31, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 31, 2016 JT meathead . Makes Doe Dumb look smart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Can mc or mp actually define what you mean by "something solid"? I consider the FOIA pretty solid. Or the fact that it is unlawful to use a private server to send or store classified information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted May 31, 2016 Author Share Posted May 31, 2016 Here's the report ladies. Read up and let's discuss... https://www.scribd.com/doc/313827050/ESP-16-03-Final Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted May 31, 2016 Author Share Posted May 31, 2016 Question: why did her people tell her underlings to NEVER SPEAK OF THE SERVER? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted May 31, 2016 Author Share Posted May 31, 2016 Huh... As previously discussed, however, sending emails from a personal account to other employees at their Department accounts is not an appropriate method of preserving any such emails that would constitute a Federal record. Therefore, Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary. At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted May 31, 2016 Author Share Posted May 31, 2016 "It was authorized"... T'was authorized.... Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the [Foreign Affairs Manual] stated that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized [Automated Information System], yet OIG found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server. According to the current [Chief Information Officer] and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs. However, according to these officials, [Bureau of Diplomatic Security] and [Bureau of Information Resource Management] did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the [Foreign Affairs Manual] and the security risks in doing so. *** OIG found no evidence that Secretary Clinton ever contacted [Bureau of Information Resource Management] to request such a solution, despite the fact that emails exchanged on her personal account regularly contained information marked as [sensitive but unclassified]. *** Although this report does not address the safety or security of her system, [Bureau of Diplomatic Security] and [Bureau of Information Resource Management] reported to OIG that Secretary Clinton never demonstrated to them that her private server or mobile device met minimum information security requirements specified by [Federal Information Security Management Act] and the [Foreign Affairs Manual]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 How anyone can defend her is just plain incredible beyond words...and that's hard for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Reality is not defending her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 1 minute ago, Mainecat said: Reality is not defending her. Common sense and integrity in any form isn't either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted May 31, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 31, 2016 (edited) I guess the R's need better 'investigators' cause after 40 years you fucking worthless clowns are still chasing ghosts Edited May 31, 2016 by SnowRider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 1 minute ago, SnowRider said: I guess the R's need better 'investigators' cause after 40 years you fucking worthless clowms are still chasing ghosts "rated as 100% false 77% and 66% of the time" So, 143% of the time? Yep. Makes sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted May 31, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 31, 2016 1 minute ago, Zambroski said: "rated as 100% false 77% and 66% of the time" So, 143% of the time? Yep. Makes sense to me. Are really that dumb or do you go out of your way to act like it? . Read it again dipshit . If your IQ hovers around 70 - I'll quit picking on you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Just now, SnowRider said: Are really that dumb or do you go out of your way to act like it? . Read it again dipshit . If your IQ hovers around 70 - I'll quit picking on you. Nope. Read it twice. That is exactly what it says. It is missing one word that would make it what you think you read and comprehended. So clearly my "IQ" isn't the one that should be in question. And I can assure you....it is not. Don't make me embarrass you again. I can go real deep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted May 31, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 31, 2016 (edited) You got Rump and The Cuban....who is just a little more honest than Rump Edited May 31, 2016 by SnowRider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted May 31, 2016 Author Share Posted May 31, 2016 4 minutes ago, SnowRider said: You got Rump and The Cuban....who is just a little more honest than Rump Done deflecting? Tell me, were any of her emails searchable for FOIA requests, within 60 days of their creation, as Federal Law dictates? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted May 31, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 31, 2016 Tell me Union Boy.....if the FBI has something will they pursue it? . Or will you have another excuse.....after 40 years you clowns have some good ones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Well it's apparent the "investigators" want her as prez. If anybody should have known the rules you would have thought the Secretary's of State would...and they all did,that's whats sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.