Rank these three in order of actually being a thing...

texas_ex2000

texas_ex2000

2,500+ Posts
Deflategate - specifically Brady's phone destruction
Cardinals hack of the Astros' Ground Control system
Clinton's e-mail server

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary...server-1440030491?cb=logged0.0951929974835366

There are a couple of things that confuse me about Clinton's e-mail server.

1) By media accounts, she never sent any classified e-mail, but received classified information. This is the most confusing to me, because you could only send classified information from one closed system to another closed system. If I had a classified powerpoint, for example, it would only be on a classified computer, and that classified computer would not physically be able to send an e-mail to [email protected], a gmail account, or any other commercial address. Of course, I could create any old gmail message or powerpoint on a regular computer lifting the proverbial skirt of the US State Department and send it to [email protected]...but that would also be really messed up. This begs the question, why would anyone send Hillary a classified e-mail over non-secure systems?

2) Whether or not someone sent her classified e-mail, she should have recognized it and known that there is no way her server was certified to store it. After the first time this could have accidentally happened she should have scrapped the entire practice.

3) Other SoS have used personal e-mail accounts. Well, I don't doubt that. But I think there's a lot more to that then what Clinton is spinning. Everyone in the IC has their own personal e-mail accounts (subject to periodic investigation BTW), professional e-mail account (e.g. @state.gov), unclassified work account, secret account, and SCI compartmentalized account.

4) As SoS, she was the "originating authority" that determines whether information is classified or not. Since she didn't classify her e-mails, they weren't classified. Many of her e-mail have since be classified out of "an abundance of caution." That may be technically true, but as an originating authority (which everyone is in the IC) it would be negligent not to classify information that should be classified and depending on the level of appropriate classification, equally criminal to mishandling already classified information.

5) This is a thing. I spent 11 years as an intelligence officer in the Navy (active duty and reserves) and the letter agencies, and I can tell you anyone else that engaged in this practice would be going to jail. If you just accidentally walk out to your car - leave the building with a classified powerpoint (which given the protocol in secured spaces is almost impossible unless you're a complete bubblehead) and haul *** back, you'll be put on administrative leave while they investigate to make sure your didn't do any wikileaks **** with it. And everyone knows the e-mail protocol. I would have been court martialed and likely sent to jail if it was high level classified communication.
 
I can't imagine that she'll be charged with a crime. I know Obama doesn't like her, but unless he truly doesn't give a damn about the Democratic Party after his presidency, I just don't see him throwing the book at her. Even if he does, the "I'm stupid" defense will be asserted.

Nevertheless, I don't see how here candidacy survives this. O'Malley and Webb are too small to be on the national ticket. Sanders isn't viable in the general election. The Democrats need Biden to enter the race and to do so ASAP.
 
This certainly damages the Clinton brand but I don't think it will keep her from winning the Democratic nomination. The Clinton camp are masters at obfuscation and making the story more complicated to the point that the average voter had difficulty following or understanding it.

Sadly, I think the Democrats are stuck with her. Bad on them. Already the Democrats were fighting an uphill battle to keep the Whitehouse. This simply makes the battle tougher.

If the Republicans don't win the election then they need to close up shop.
 
For anyone with a clearance, proper OPSEC is like sterlization for a surgeon. There is no "I wanted convience...or I don't know how it all works" excuse. It is a professional standard.

Oh...here's another one. Ashley Madison.

I know what Billy would think.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
I said that three years ago. Apparently they didn't listen because we're having another primary...
Click to expand...

A sitting POTUS is hard to dethrone without a Perot-like assist. This time around though you have an excited Republican base and the opposite on the other side of the aisle. American's always like a change thus you have 17 Republican candidates falling over each other to be the nominee knowing simply by being the nominee they have an huge advantage. The inverse is true on the Democrat side. They know any Democrat nominee is facing a serious headwind thus outside of Bernie Sanders seem to be content to gamble in the Clinton machine.

The Republican Party needs to get their act together. The danger of a split in the party is real. Rience Prebus' interviews after the last debate were eerily reminiscent to the Kevin Bacon character at the end of Animal House where he's screaming "all is well...don't panic" in the midst of the chaos of parade gone awry.
 
texas_ex2000 said:
For anyone with a clearance, proper OPSEC is like sterlization for a surgeon. There is no "I wanted convience...or I don't know how it all works" excuse. It is a professional standard.

Oh...here's another one. Ashley Madison.

I know what Billy would think.
Click to expand...

I've been through the security review process and know it quite well. I don't think the average voter has the attention span to understand it or even believe it especially when they see how easy Edward Snowden, a SharePoint administrator, walked away with his treasure trove of classified data.
 
Basically he pointed out that as facts dribble out, we're learning that what she said earlier was false. The more facts that come out, the more impossible it is to believe the altenate email server was anything except a device to control the flow of information and her misdirection and obfuscation about "cleaning" the hard drive is hard to see as anything except an effort to conceal.
 
I heard on the Bill Bennett radio program that Hillary was considered such an expert on classified material that the Obama Administration gave her the capability to make non-classified documents classified. Sounds like she thought that she had the capability to make classified docs unclassified too.

People who know more about this than me say that they strung David Petraeus up for a lot less than what Hillary did.
 
Clean said:
I heard on the Bill Bennett radio program that Hillary was considered such an expert on classified material that the Obama Administration gave her the capability to make non-classified documents classified
Click to expand...

That sounds like partisanship. I'd think it was that the role of SOS has that responsibility but I could be wrong.
 
I stopped thinking a long time ago that THIS or THAT scandal was going to doom one of the Clinton's. However, this server scandal has caused HC to dig herself a very deep hole that she may not be able to get out of.... we will see.

BUT the Clinton's are both lawyers, everything they do is very calculated, they have surrounded themselves with a machine type organization to weather all storms, fight back, go on the offensive and get the public and media to moveon.org (pun intended). Later if the scandal is brought up again, the person bringing it up is ridiculed and told it is old news and has been settled. I wonder if Jack Palladino or Terry Lenzner are still working for them...

I think her campaign is damaged but somehow I don't discount her somehow doing another Houdini from the manacles of this scandal.
 
Last edited:
The Hillary campaign must be loving the Trump attention. It's distracting the all but the hardcore right from focusing on the email scandal. While the Republican Party establishment would love for everyone's attention to be on the Clinton's intentional deceit, Trumps stealing headlines with his "let's deport 11 million Mexican immigrants" line.
 
Sadly, I think the Democrats are stuck with her. Bad on them. Already the Democrats were fighting an uphill battle to keep the Whitehouse. This simply makes the battle tougher.

If the Republicans don't win the election then they need to close up shop.
Click to expand...
The Hillary campaign must be loving the Trump attention. It's distracting the all but the hardcore right from focusing on the email scandal. While the Republican Party establishment would love for everyone's attention to be on the Clinton's intentional deceit, Trumps stealing headlines with his "let's deport 11 million Mexican immigrants" line.
Click to expand...

There's more than one reason most of the media is making sure Trump is presented as the main candidate. Yeah, his big mouth attracts attention, but that's not the only factor.

I can't imagine that she'll be charged with a crime
Click to expand...

It'll probably be about like all the illegal FBI files - the Clinton name apparently grants the equivalent of sovereign immunity.
 
Husker
you usually don't deliberately twist words.
" "let's deport 11 million Mexican immigrants" line."
You know perfectly well Trump said Illegals.
He is wrong on this but thankfully he won't be the nominee.

Most of the media and all the Dems are using the same approach as you did. To keep pretending there is no difference between legal immigrants and illegals doesn't help our country.
 
Statalyzer said:
It'll probably be about like all the illegal FBI files - the Clinton name apparently grants the equivalent of sovereign immunity.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, reminds me.

During Bill's first term, the Clinton's had like 900 FBI files that WH Security guy Craig Livingstone somehow procured. Most of the files were on Republicans if I recall and it was thought Hillary ordered him to get them. When it came out the Clinton's had these files and it was illegal to do so, Livingstone (a former bartender) was the lamb that got thrown under the bus and he later stepped down.
 
Last edited:
Horn6721 said:
Husker
you usually don't deliberately twist words.
" "let's deport 11 million Mexican immigrants" line."
You know perfectly well Trump said Illegals.
He is wrong on this but thankfully he won't be the nominee.

Most of the media and all the Dems are using the same approach as you did. To keep pretending there is no difference between legal immigrants and illegals doesn't help our country.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you are correct. He did say "illegals", "illegal aliens" or some variant thereof. It would be the first time in human history that 11 million people were forcibly moved from one country to another. Just contemplating the cost makes the idea laughable. It's the absurdity of the idea that is grabbing headlines from the Clinton scandal, especially when coming from the current leader in the Republican Nominee polls. Trump is the gift that keeps on giving to the left. It's not the media driving Trump but rather the media chasing the audience. The fact that 26 million viewers tuned into the last debate is evidence of this. Trump has turned the Republican nomination process into his own personal reality TV show and somehow winning over Republican voters in the process. I too don't think he'll win but he consistently gets 20+% in every poll. Those voters should be as ashamed for themselves as the 90+% black voters that will stick with Democrats no matter the situation.
 
Seattle Husker said:
It would be the first time in human history that 11 million people were forcibly moved from one country to another. Just contemplating the cost makes the idea laughable.
Click to expand...

The closest example would be the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe after WWII. That was about 12 million people from a handful of countries (mostly Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union). That was a huge undertaking and took about five years, and it was done at the barrel of the gun. Those people didn't get deportation hearings, and there was no right to be free from unwarranted searches and seizures. Soviet troops could just bust through doors arbitrarily, grab German-looking people and make them do a death march back to Germany.

Trying to remove a similar number people from the US would be a much bigger deal. You'd have to catch them within the constraints of the Constitution, and they'd all get deportation hearings. It would cost a fortune and would take a generation to complete. No chance in hell that we'll ever do that. It would be far more practical to grant legal status (not citizenship) in exchange for paying back taxes and learning English to those without criminal records, deport those who have criminal records, and fine the hell out of crooked businesses.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Trying to remove a similar number people from the US would be a much bigger deal. You'd have to catch them within the constraints of the Constitution, and they'd all get deportation hearings. It would cost a fortune and would take a generation to complete. No chance in hell that we'll ever do that. It would be far more practical to grant legal status (not citizenship) in exchange for paying back taxes and learning English to those without criminal records, deport those who have criminal records, and fine the hell out of crooked businesses.
Click to expand...

That's a sensible and realistic approach. Unfortunately, there are some on the right that would read that and think only "amnesty" which pulls us back to the same rhetoric we hear today. Build a wall...deport. Build a wall...deport. Oh...let's ignore that pesky 14th amendment too.

The Republicans need to simply drop the immigration discussion. Like discussions with the Democrats on Welfare reform, they simply go to their base instinct and lose reality.
 
Seattle Husker said:
The Republicans need to simply drop the immigration discussion. Like discussions with the Democrats on Welfare reform, they simply go to their base instinct and lose reality.
Click to expand...

Hell no. Dropping the discussion is tantamount to giving in. We've got an illegal immigration problem and almost no one wants to talk about it, much less do anything. Trump and Ann Coulter are some of the few with guts enough to address the issue.

I got a kick out of reporters attacking Trump and Bush for using the term "anchor babies" this week. That's the next big thing for the Left, anchor babies equals racism. If you're anti-illegal immigration you're a bigot. Just like if you were anti gay rights you were a bigot. The Left wins all its battles by shaming people into shutting up using political correctness. They out McCarthy McCarthy.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
The closest example would be the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe after WWII. That was about 12 million people from a handful of countries (mostly Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union). That was a huge undertaking and took about five years, and it was done at the barrel of the gun. Those people didn't get deportation hearings, and there was no right to be free from unwarranted searches and seizures. Soviet troops could just bust through doors arbitrarily, grab German-looking people and make them do a death march back to Germany.

Trying to remove a similar number people from the US would be a much bigger deal. You'd have to catch them within the constraints of the Constitution, and they'd all get deportation hearings. It would cost a fortune and would take a generation to complete. No chance in hell that we'll ever do that. It would be far more practical to grant legal status (not citizenship) in exchange for paying back taxes and learning English to those without criminal records, deport those who have criminal records, and fine the hell out of crooked businesses.
Click to expand...
Enforcing laws and maintaing soverignty are expensive. As I have said in other threads, doing the things we all know are right are usually difficult, inconvenient, and expensive. Illegal immingration will also cost far more a generation from now.

Contrary to how liberals want to frame this, the point of this isn't deporting every single illegal in the country. That is not the litmus test for success of the policy. The point is, are we a society of laws? Are we enforcing those laws and our right to enforce those laws (sovereignty)?

For those that say we are also a country of compassion. I completely agree, and our laws (specifically asylum laws) should reflect that. But the law has to be respected because the law is the foundation for all the other things a society strives to be.

I have also said that State should set up field stations downrange from the border and in these C. American countries where, along with embassies and consulates, asylum seekers can apply. There would be no asylum applications at the border itself. These stations make it easier and safer for these folks as they do not have to smuggle their families across Mexico.

While it may not necessarily be a wall, the border itself should be defended like any other federal installation.
 
Last edited:
It is beyond ridiculous to think the nation would ever even attempt to "round up" 11 million + illegals and deport them.
I agree some sort of legal status could be granted them IF we also find a way to more securely the border AND we go after people who employ them. If we do shut down employment many would self deport.

So the current and to many most reasonable solution is to have the illegals pay back taxes, pay a fine, learn English and not be criminals. Fine
How do you collect a fine? back taxes? How long do they have to pay a fine and or back taxes?
What happens when the illegals do not pay the fine or the back taxes in the allotted time?
Who teaches them English? How long do they have to learn it? What happens if they don't learn English in the allotted time?
How much would all this cost the taxpayer? How large would the bureaucracy have to be to implement this?
 
WorsterMan said:
Hmmm, reminds me.

During Bill's first term, the Clinton's had like 900 FBI files that WH Security guy Craig Livingstone somehow procured. Most of the files were on Republicans if I recall and it was thought Hillary ordered him to get them. When it came out the Clinton's had these files and it was illegal to do so, Livingstone (a former bartender) was the lamb that got thrown under the bus and he later stepped down.
Click to expand...

That is not a very accurate statement of what happened. According to Ken Starr's and the Congressional investigation, the Bush team took all White House employee records with them when they left (perfectly legal-but left the new team with no records). The newly installed security team requested a list of all White House employees. The list the SS provided was outdated, and contained former, Bush era employees as well as permanent staff. All of these, which ominously included Republicans that worked for Bush, were requested from the FBI. If you will recall, things got silly, with R's claiming that Bill and Hillary pored over thee files, and stupid claims of a Nixonian enemies lists. It got so silly, that Orrin Hatch had the files tested for Hillary's fingerprints. In retrospect, the whole thing was preposterous. All the files were of former and current White House employees. This was not an effort to get FBI files of Republicans. The Clinton's did not have the files, and Hillary did not order Livingstone to get the files.
 
towersniper said:
This was not an effort to get FBI files of Republicans
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I disagree. Perhaps some files may have been garnered by accident but most were not. You may be a Clinton apologist but that is not what happened with this issue. If not you give the Clinton's far too much benefit of the doubt on this.
 
Last edited:
WorsterMan said:
With all due respect, I disagree. Perhaps some files may have been garnered by accident but most were not. You may be a Clinton apologist but that is not what happened with this issue. If not you give the Clinton's far too much benefit of the doubt on this.
Click to expand...
Oh please. I am no Clinton apologist. I wish she would slink off the political scene forever. There are plenty of skeletons in her closet, but Filegate and Travelgate were absolute farces, and emblematic of the scandal mongering that became our politics in the 1990's. Your conclusion is contrary to the findings of Starr, Robert Ray, the House investigation and the Senate investigation, and the outcome of Judicial Watch's 15 year ******** lawsuit, and demonstrates that you are the opposite of a Clinton apologist - you have no credibility concerning anything Clinton because you insist on seeing evil in anything they touch. As far as you are concerned, no evidence would exonerate her of any of your pet scandals. Multiple investigations and failed lawsuits will not convince you; nothing will. Millions of dollars completely wasted. Vlnce Foster's "murder", Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, these were political attacks that managed to dilute real sins of the Clinton's. That crap gave credence to their claims of a "vast right wing conspiracy" and gave gthem cover for legitimate problems. This new found habit of attacking political opponents with endless pretend "investigations" aimed at the paranoid wing nut base gave birth to the birthers, and has trivialized our politics. Please tell me, was a single file obtained from the FBI that was not of a former or then current White House staffer? If not, why not, if your "theory" is correct??
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top