FBI report: Hillarys emails...worse than we thought

[*bfine32*]

(02-02-2016, 12:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I see what you're trying to do, but given threats of violence were made and the movement was an attempt to coerce, I maintain my stance based on the FBI definition.

Maybe would hold water if you didn't form the label on day 1 of the situation.

We all form opinions based on our bias and don't always wait for everything to "shake out" before forming it. 

[JustWinBaby]

(02-01-2016, 10:56 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: 22 out of 35,000? I think we can give her a pass this time around

Actually, it's more than 1200 classified emails, and a few dozen "super duper classified" that a reasonable person would expect a competent SoS to be able to recognize.

Her latest "it was a newspaper article!" must have come from the same magic 8-ball that gave us "it was a video!"

[Belsnickel]

(02-02-2016, 12:36 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Maybe would hold water if you didn't form the label on day 1 of the situation.

We all form opinions based on our bias and don't always wait for everything to "shake out" before forming it. 

No, the threat was there, the intention was to coerce the government. All the evidence was there to form an opinion on day one. In the Clinton situation the only word to go on that she 'should have known' is an opinion from a political opponent. The facts themselves cannot lead one to a conclusion of guilt or innocence without bias.

You're comparing situations that are very different in a number of ways.

[fredtoast]

(02-02-2016, 02:22 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote:  a reasonable person would expect a competent SoS to be able to recognize.

How you say this when you have no idea what the content was?

[fredtoast]

(02-01-2016, 11:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I've told Fred: The ignorance alibi might work for those that have never dealt with such data. 


Sometimes we have to use the reasonable person model. 

Sometimes you need to take into account that political enemies will say a lot of things that were not true.

Lots of "Republicans in congress" also claim that is was CLEAR that Clinton was directly responsible for the deaths in Benghazi, but for some reason after several investigations by a Republican Congress they found nothing.

But, yeah, just keep right on believing that everything that comes out of the right wing echo chamber is 100% true even though it has been proven wrong in the past.

[JustWinBaby]

(02-02-2016, 10:59 AM)fredtoast Wrote: How you say this when you have no idea what the content was?

Because I'm a reasonable person that understands there's a pretty huge difference between rudimentary classified materials and beyond top-secret, need to know.

I'm also willing to bet that out of 1200 classified emails she should have known at least a few of them were classified.

[*bfine32*]

(02-02-2016, 08:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, the threat was there, the intention was to coerce the government. All the evidence was there to form an opinion on day one. In the Clinton situation the only word to go on that she 'should have known' is an opinion from a political opponent. The facts themselves cannot lead one to a conclusion of guilt or innocence without bias.

You're comparing situations that are very different in a number of ways.

Roll with that

[GMDino]

(02-02-2016, 03:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Roll with that

In all honesty I'd like to know what else those patriots you keep defending could have done to be even *considered* terrorists in your book.

Seriously.

Instead of casting judgement on what others think (and have provided multiple explanations for) please tell us why you think they are NOT terrorists and what would have crossed the line for *you*.

Other than wearing exploding vests that they would take off themselves.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-02-2016, 02:57 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Because I'm a reasonable person that understands there's a pretty huge difference between rudimentary classified materials and beyond top-secret, need to know.

I'm also willing to bet that out of 1200 classified emails she should have known at least a few of them were classified.

I haven't paid much attention to this topic.  How did the emails get on her server?

[*bfine32*]

(02-02-2016, 03:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: In all honesty I'd like to know what else those patriots you keep defending could have done to be even *considered* terrorists in your book.

Seriously.

Instead of casting judgement on what others think (and have provided multiple explanations for) please tell us why you think they are NOT terrorists and what would have crossed the line for *you*.

Other than wearing exploding vests that they would take off themselves.  

They could have instilled terror in people by carrying out violent acts.

I prefer to call them criminal, not Patriots or Terrorists. I will leave the hyperbole and classifying those that chose not to call them terrorists as some sort of defense of their actions up to others. 

Did you ever stop to think why main-stream media has never labeled them as terrorists? Is it because they are not as open-minded and/or intelligent as many here are?  

[JustWinBaby]

(02-02-2016, 03:34 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I haven't paid much attention to this topic.  How did the emails get on her server?

I'm guessing people typed in her address, typed in an email and hit send.

[*bfine32*]

(02-02-2016, 03:34 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I haven't paid much attention to this topic.  How did the emails get on her server?

electronically

[GMDino]

(02-02-2016, 04:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They could have instilled terror in people by carrying out violent acts.

I prefer to call them criminal, not Patriots or Terrorists. I will leave the hyperbole and classifying those that chose not to call them terrorists as some sort of defense of their actions up to others. 

Did you ever stop to think why main-stream media has never labeled them as terrorists? Is it because they are not as open-minded and/or intelligent as many here are?  

Just to be clear: you do not consider them terrorist simply because they did not "carry out violent acts".  That's it.  No matter what they said they would do as long as they didn't do it...not terrorists?

[*bfine32*]

(02-02-2016, 04:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: Just to be clear: you do not consider them terrorist simply because they did not "carry out violent acts".  That's it.  No matter what they said they would do as long as they didn't do it...not terrorists?

No. I do not consider them terrorists because that did not threaten or carry out acts to instill terror in citizens  to achieve their desired motives. But apparently I'm flying solo on this. 

Of course it matters what they say/said.



Ok that's 2 questions answered, no how about mind:

Why do you think main-stream  media never classified these folks as terrorists?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-02-2016, 04:02 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'm guessing people typed in her address, typed in an email and hit send.

Does that mean the Secretary of State can only check their email at work?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-02-2016, 04:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: electronically

You would make a helluva politician because you can say nothing even when you say something.

[*bfine32*]

(02-02-2016, 04:15 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You would make a helluva politician because you can say nothing even when you say something.

Oh, you really wanted to know; I just thought you were being deliberately obtuse.

The emails got there because people sent them and she replied to them. 

Does this mean she as (SOS) can only check emails from work? Apparently not, as she has not already been arrested. The issue comes when a sitting SOS is too stupid (best case) to identify an email that should be classified as secret or higher simply by reading it.

This is her whole defense (she has stated this) as to why she did it: "I didn't know because they were not marked". of course that has updated from her original defense: "I didn't do it"'

But we have to wait for everything to "shake out" before we can rightly form an opinion on this. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-02-2016, 04:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, you really wanted to know; I just thought you were being deliberately obtuse.

The emails got there because people sent them and she replied to them. 

Does this mean she as (SOS) can only check emails from work? Apparently not, as she has not already been arrested. The issue comes when a sitting SOS is too stupid (best case) to identify an email that should be classified as secret or higher simply by reading it.

This is her whole defense (she has stated this) as to why she did it: "I didn't know because they were not marked". of course that has updated from her original defense: "I didn't do it"'

But we have to wait for everything to "shake out" before we can rightly form an opinion on this. 

Like I wrote, I haven't paid attention to this topic because I see it as just partisan bickering.

But, if what you claim is true:

Why doesn't a Secretary of State have a secure server at home?  Or some means to check email when they aren't in the office?

Why weren't the emails encrypted so they can't be opened on an unsecured server without the same encryption?

How is any SOS supposed to know the contents is classified until after they read an unencrypted email on an unsecured server?

Does the US Government not have an IT department?

Was there a data breech?

[JustWinBaby]

(02-02-2016, 04:14 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Does that mean the Secretary of State can only check their email at work?

Of course not.  She had her state-issued smartphone and could presumably log into a secure server remotely, as well.  The issue is she set-up her own server with her own email address to handle things.

So people would need to correspond with her non-departmental email address.  Now, there is supposed to be a separate, secure server for classified emails.  But that doesn't prevent someone from scanning or typing the contents into an email from a non-secure server to send.

Why are you asking the question?  Does it matter?  Are you attempting to contend there were no classified emails on her server and the FBI and State Dept are just full of it?

[fredtoast]

(02-02-2016, 04:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  The issue comes when a sitting SOS is too stupid (best case) to identify an email that should be classified as secret or higher simply by reading it.

Again, just because you claim this as "best case" does not mean it is true.

The fact that she could not recognize information as "classified" might have nothing at all to do with stupidity.  But obviously that fact is not allowed in the echo chamber you confuse with reality.