And the Donald Trump Memorial Award goes to…[/quote]
It’s an open secret in Washington that HRC likes girls . . .
. . . and one in particular:
And the Donald Trump Memorial Award goes to…[/quote]
It’s an open secret in Washington that HRC likes girls . . .
. . . and one in particular:
[/quote]
Omg it’s true, the feminazi lesbians are taking over :yay:
Hillary and Bill’s sexual escapades have been well known since Bill was governor. Maybe she should use that as part of her platform. Not only would that shore up the LGBT vote but surely distract from the long lost of scandals and take the heat off her corporate sponsors and lobby groups.
Clinton’s sexual orientation isn’t the issue. It’s the complications that arise from her efforts to hide her orientation that make her candidacy and presidency problematic. She most likely couldn’t get elected if she came out as a married woman living in a same sex extra marital relationship but the closet in the Oval Office isn’t big enough to protect her from foreign adversaries playing the character assassination card.
The personal email and Benghazi “issues” or “stories” are bullshit. They have no legs. If they had, there would be something. She did nothing wrong. This is as bad as looking for the proof that Bush and his team outed that dipshit Valerie Plame or that there was proof that Bush “lied and troops died.” This is ugly politics and nothing more. Clinton has done NOTHING wrong.
Obviously I have no clue whether Hillary is or is not gay and wouldn’t care one bit either way, but I think on the point about not being electable you are correct. There’s no chance a gay or lesbian could be elected so if she is I can hardly blame her for keeping it private. Just like Obama being an obvious atheist, no candidate could ever actually come out and say that.
Hillary just has to keep saying she loves God, America, and her husband and it’s a lock 
There is a certain symmetry between fudging intelligence and fudging intelligence protocol.
Isn’t the thread on AGW enough for you in terms of denial? She won’t be prosecuted because Obama. What a mess, and the State department is bending over backwards and everyone can see their ass.
Drip drip drip, Obama Im sure will plug the leak, or one of those 30 thousand email recipients who got deleted might surface, or someone with a grudge in government leaks some info, best yet julian Assange releases all her email on wikileaks. Shes compromised and everyone has dirt on her. You think she is fit for office?
She won’t be prosecuted because there is no evidence she broke the law-none. Yet. There might be, but I doubt it. If you think there is evidence (not conjecture), please provide it.
You are listening to people trying to draw a parallel between this case and the Petraeus case.
Alan Dershowitz has already stated that the investigation is forward looking so it is about lessons learned to more proactively PROTECT data not determine wrong doing by Secretary Clinton. Both Rice and Powell have stated that they did similar things and until recently it was NOT against the law and there were NO rules about use of personal emails other than to ban sending CONFIDENTIAL messages. She didn’t and so as Dershowitz stated no prosecution ex post facto. She is innocent and this is just election campaign smearing like we saw with Bush before her. Denial? like climate change? Why, yes, I suppose it is a “denial” of that sort if the world you live in is governed by nonReality and conjecture and projections (subjective/personal/millennarian) renderings of paranoid pearl clutching. SHUT UP already.
According to the Washington Post, so far 305 emails have been singled out for having potentially classified information and they are not even a quarter of the way through the emails she didn’t delete . Of a sample of only 40 two inspector generals said 2 of them were top secret both at the time they were sent and now. Her defense at the moment is they weren’t marked confidential and she didn’t knowingly send or receive classified information, which is the legal threshold that needs to be proven if a conviction were to be made and not an easy one to prove.
So no, unless the deleted emails are recovered or there is some bombshell she forgot to scrub, I doubt she will be prosecuted. I did see the interview with Alan Dershowitz though.
According to the Washington Post, so far 305 emails have been singled out for having potentially classified information and they are not even a quarter of the way through the emails she didn’t delete . Of a sample of only 40 two inspector generals said 2 of them were top secret both at the time they were sent and now. Her defense at the moment is they weren’t marked confidential and she didn’t knowingly send or receive classified information, which is the legal threshold that needs to be proven if a conviction were to be made and not an easy one to prove.
So no, unless the deleted emails are recovered or there is some bombshell she forgot to scrub, I doubt she will be prosecuted. I did see the interview with Alan Dershowitz though.[/quote]
I am no fan of HRC and I definitely won’t vote for her. But you are assuming something got scrubbed when it’s just as likely that she deleted emails because that’s what people do. The assumption is that she must have scrubbed something to keep her from looking guilty. As much as I don’t like Hillary Clinton, I have a hard time believing that she would knowingly put classified information on her own personal server. Was she ignorant? Quite possibly and given her generation’s understanding of technology, that wouldn’t surprise me. I’m giving the same benefit of the doubt to Colin Powell, who has also said he used a personal email account to conduct official business in the same position. What did he do with that account? He deleted it. He never turned it over to anyone. I don’t think this means he was “scrubbing.” And while Petraeus was using a personal email, that’s not what he got in trouble for- he knowingly gave classified information to the lady he was cheating on his wife with, who just happened to be a reporter. If Clinton had done something even remotely similar, I would say prosecute her. But there’s nothing here. It’s a political attack.
A high ranking government using an unsecured, outside email account to conduct government business is one thing but setting up your own email server is something else entirely. All that effort to remain invisible may have backfired though:
[quote] The IT firm hired by Hillary Clinton to oversee her private server has told ABC it is “highly likely” a backup copy of the server was made, meaning any emails Clinton deleted before she handed the server over to investigators may still be accessible.
Being able to access the deleted emails via a backup server would most likely make investigators’ job much easier, cybersecurity expert Alex McGeorge of Immunity Inc. told Business Insider on Friday.
Having access to the server’s backups could also give investigators “a better timeline,” McGeorge said, and allow them to see whether her private account was ever breached by hackers.
ABC News chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl said the firm hired by Clinton in 2013, the Denver-based Platte River Networks, said it was "cooperating with the FBI.”
Clinton says she deleted roughly 30,000 emails off of her server that were “personal” in nature before handing over another 30,000 emails to the State Department.
“I was permitted to and used a personal email and, obviously in retrospect, given all the concerns that have been raised, it would have been probably smarter not to,” she told Iowa Public Radio last week. “But I never sent nor received any classified email, nothing marked ‘Classified.’ And I think this will all sort itself out.”
But authorities sifting through the emails say they have reportedly found more than 60 emails containing classified information, though it’s mostly at low levels. Those 60 emails did not include two emails discovered by the intelligence community’s inspector general, Charles McCullough III, which allegedly contained information classified as Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information, the government’s highest levels of classification.
Platte River “is not cleared” to have access to classified material, Cindy McGovern, chief public affairs officer for the Defense Security Service, told The Daily Caller.[/quote]
This wont go away for Hillary, partly because she is so full of shit.
:roflmao: No one can be that dumb.
[quote]Asked as she left the press gaggle if she’s concerned that the issue of her email server is not going to go away for her campaign, she shrugged.
“Nobody talks to me about it other than you guys,” she said.[/quote]
:slight_smile: No one asks her, because everyone she meets is hand picked and their questions vetted beforehand. [url=http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-again-defends-use-personal-email-server-n412076]Link[/url]
[quote=“Mick”]This wont go away for Hillary, partly because she is so full of shit.
:roflmao: No one can be that dumb.
[quote]Asked as she left the press gaggle if she’s concerned that the issue of her email server is not going to go away for her campaign, she shrugged.
“Nobody talks to me about it other than you guys,” she said.[/quote]
:slight_smile: No one asks her, because everyone she meets is hand picked and their questions vetted beforehand. [url=http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-again-defends-use-personal-email-server-n412076]Link[/url][/quote]
Hillary is very far from dumb so even implying it looks a little silly. And I think she’s right that few people ask her about it, but not for the reason you are saying. I think it’s because it’s mainly a non issue in most peoples mind. Sure there’s always people out there that think every little fuck up by a politician is grounds for months of drawn out investigations and insults, but it’s not like she was selling secrets to the Russians in the early 80’s. She’s a 68 year old computer illiterate future President, it’s pretty easy to see how this all happened.
The Hillary email witch hunt isn’t quite on par with Obama’s birth certificate, but it’s certainly in the ball park
[quote=“BrentGolf”]
Hillary is very far from dumb so even implying it looks a little silly. [/quote]
She’s playing dumb Hillary, it’s not a very good act IMO. when she talks about setting up the email for convenience because she doesn’t want to use 2 phones, shes playing dumb, or when she says “what difference does it make” she’s trying to exploit Republicans harping on about a dead issue, instead it backfires on her and makes her seem callous. Her comment about wiping the server clean, was I don’t doubt an attempt at a joke, but we (or at least I) are getting tired of the dumb Hillary act.
[quote=“BrentGolf”]
And I think she’s right that few people ask her about it, but not for the reason you are saying. I think it’s because it’s mainly a non issue in most peoples mind. Sure there’s always people out there that think every little fuck up by a politician is grounds for months of drawn out investigations and insults, but it’s not like she was selling secrets to the Russians in the early 80’s. She’s a 68 year old computer illiterate future President, it’s pretty easy to see how this all happened.
The Hillary email witch hunt isn’t quite on par with Obama’s birth certificate, but it’s certainly in the ball park [/quote]
I’m being entertained, Judicial Watch are back in court to discuss Hillarys bullshit response to a request about what devices contain her emails in a couple of days.
[quote=“Mick”]This wont go away for Hillary, partly because she is so full of shit.
:roflmao: No one can be that dumb. [/quote]
I think that was a perfect answer. If people are asking questions with loaded words like wiped or scrubbed, why should she answer that seriously? She maintains she did nothing wrong and imo, she should continue to mock reporters who assume she did.
[quote=“Cooperations”]
I think that was a perfect answer. If people are asking questions with loaded words like wiped or scrubbed, why should she answer that seriously? She maintains she did nothing wrong and imo, she should continue to mock reporters who assume she did.[/quote]
You may indeed, however judging by the front page post reactions to this on reddit, you would be in a very small minority. reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/ … %E3%83%84/ This is an extremely left leaning site, but they usually have a better than average technical knowledge.
Wiped or scrubbed is how we refer to really cleaning a drive, which differentiates it from deleting which as you correctly stated is what you and I do. It’s not so easy to delete something, what I thought she would do is pull the hard drive, install a new one and copy over the files she wanted, of course with time stamps it would be obvious that was what she done, but its about the only real way to be sure the emails she didnt want are gone.
Scrubbing or wiping means formatting, maybe several times, then writing over all the drive with 1’s and 0’s, again it could be several times and even then it may be possible to recover the data.
It’s a valid question because it shows the effort put in to hide information, I had read initial reports that she had wiped the server or someone had done it for her. To be involved in this email scandal for months and not know what wiping a server means is impossible.
[quote=“Mick”][quote=“Cooperations”]
I think that was a perfect answer. If people are asking questions with loaded words like wiped or scrubbed, why should she answer that seriously? She maintains she did nothing wrong and imo, she should continue to mock reporters who assume she did.[/quote]
You may indeed, however judging by the front page post reactions to this on reddit, you would be in a very small minority. reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/ … %E3%83%84/ This is an extremely left leaning site, but they usually have a better than average technical knowledge.
Wiped or scrubbed is how we refer to really cleaning a drive, which differentiates it from deleting which as you correctly stated is what you and I do. It’s not so easy to delete something, what I thought she would do is pull the hard drive, install a new one and copy over the files she wanted, of course with time stamps it would be obvious that was what she done, but its about the only real way to be sure the emails she didnt want are gone.
Scrubbing or wiping means formatting, maybe several times, then writing over all the drive with 1’s and 0’s, again it could be several times and even then it may be possible to recover the data.
It’s a valid question because it shows the effort put in to hide information, I had read initial reports that she had wiped the server or someone had done it for her. To be involved in this email scandal for months and not know what wiping a server means is impossible.[/quote]
Or maybe she knows exactly what it means and was mocking them for assuming it in the question they asked. There is no evidence things were wiped, except your initial reports. Speaking of those, remember that initial report that said the fbi was pursuing a criminal case? That the nyt had to change because they just kind of made it up?
Or maybe she did ask someone to make sure to clean the disk thoroughly because she thought by doing this, she was complying with the law to turn over relevant information and wipe information she shouldn’t keep/ store because she is no longer in that position. If she had kept it all, they would probably be asking her why oh why she felt the need to keep important government super secrets on her own server. I cannot imagine her sitting with tech people talking about wiping drives. I can imagine her saying to staff, “hey, we’re out of here, so let’s make sure we aren’t keeping gov’t information in places we shouldn’t.” Tech guy gets the memo and decides the best way to do that is to wipe or scrub.
Or maybe some tech person handles it all for her and she knew little to nothing about it. Maybe she did what lots of people do- hire tech people to take care of the tech, and let staff manage all of that. Seems reasonable to me that she would be too busy with her job as the nation’s top diplomat to micromanage techies.
Or maybe a bunch of tech geeks go on reddit to increase feelings of superiority about their superior knowledge of all things tech, when they aren’t debating superior dungeon and dragon strategies with their pretend girlfriends named after star trek characters. Let me express my shock that people go on forums to anonymously talk about how awesome they know stuff 
There are myriads of possibilities and you are assuming the worst ones without actually having any evidence. I’m going to take her at her word until there is evidence of something different from what she has said. Just imagine if people focused on how few accomplishments she has had in a lifetime of public service instead of trying so hard to create a scandal about email. They might actually have a chance at beating her.