Quote :

"lol that you think that only trump could have come up the word "rigged". like that is Shakespeare or something"

Cool strawman.

You parroted much more than that one word dufus.

7/5/2016 8:28:17 PM

Quote :

"You parroted much more than that one word dufus."

you know you won an argument when they sink to childish insults imo

those 2 points are OBVIOUS. i dont know what to tell you

[Edited on July 5, 2016 at 8:34 PM. Reason : h]

7/5/2016 8:33:25 PM

Your problem here is you are always sending me his tweets and read only his tweets in my presence, and you parroted his two points here hours after he tweeted them. The jig is up my friend.

I know you say you're not going to vote for him, but I'm not so sure...

[Edited on July 5, 2016 at 8:39 PM. Reason : There are plenty of OBVIOUS takeaways here but u just happened to chose the exact two with the exact same language as your FAVORITE Twitter follow?]

[Edited on July 5, 2016 at 8:43 PM. Reason : V See that's yet another takeaway. Another of which you didn't post! Nothing about being above the law. Nothing about their history breaking laws. etc]

7/5/2016 8:36:35 PM

This shit is completely indefensible.

7/5/2016 8:42:05 PM

^ true.

anyone who has

1) ever had any government security clearance, or
2) a brain

agrees.

I was having a conversation with my sons tonight about this and politics in general and they couldn't understand why people would vote for someone just because of their gender

but alas, people are idiots

7/5/2016 9:47:42 PM

It's absolutely incredible that your children would agree with your political positions.

What are the odds???

[Edited on July 5, 2016 at 10:55 PM. Reason : Also your premise is dumb. I'm sure you were making the same dumb argument about race in 2008]

[Edited on July 5, 2016 at 11:01 PM. Reason : At least you could talk your offspring into being upset about her shady shit, instead of her gender.]

7/5/2016 10:48:56 PM

God damn, another generation of dog whistles. Yay.

7/6/2016 8:25:28 AM

but alas, m'lady

7/6/2016 9:48:09 AM

Quote :

"in 2012, Nishimura admitted to handling “classified materials inappropriately” while deployed to Afghanistan from 2007-2008. Nishimura served as a Regional Engineer and, according to the FBI’s investigation into the incident, “had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers.” “Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media,” wrote the FBI. “He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment.” Like Clinton, Nishimura admitted to destroying “a large quantity of classified materials.” Like Clinton, the FBI investigation into his actions “did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.” Unlike Clinton, he was sentenced to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials. He was also “ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance.” Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/2015-doj-prosecutes-a-naval-reservist-for-mishandling-classified-info-without-malicious-intent/#ixzz4Ddc5MxmH "

7/6/2016 10:15:16 AM

Ok I will say one more thing then. And this is it, I promise.

Regardless of whether she should or should not be held criminally liable for anything that she did regarding her email activity, no one can argue that she was negligent, full of poor decisions, and just plain stupid with her clearance level. That can not be disputed, those are facts with a few of my adjectives thrown in.

Someone who is so careless with her clearance running for a position that is one of the most cleared in the world as far as national and international security? Seems like a no brainer.

I say that, but then I remember my only real alternative is Trump, of whom one could say "Do we even want to give that type of clearance to a person like him?"

Ugh.

7/6/2016 11:26:57 AM

yep, she'd totally set up another private server again if elected

7/6/2016 11:52:23 AM

Yeah I'm sure she wouldn't do anything shady at all, she is so trustworthy and all

7/6/2016 11:55:04 AM

most transparent politician in history

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-missing-emails-secretary-state-department-personal-server-investigation-fbi-214016

7/6/2016 2:07:26 PM

Nothing damning there.

Email gaps of single days! When he started going on about time lapses in email traffic I thought he was going to say a week+ or something. But a single day? Come on.

And no emails about Bill being in Columbia? That proves exactly jack shit.

Then you get down to the money line:

Quote :

"senior editor-at-large at Breitbart.com."

and he's also the author of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Cash
so this whole article is promotional BS for that book, and the upcoming movie

[Edited on July 6, 2016 at 2:58 PM. Reason : and a number of the allegations in that book have been proven false. SHOCKING!]

7/6/2016 2:56:04 PM

Quote :

"Regardless of whether she should or should not be held criminally liable for anything that she did regarding her email activity, no one can argue that she was negligent, full of poor decisions, and just plain stupid with her clearance level. That can not be disputed, those are facts with a few of my adjectives thrown in. Someone who is so careless with her clearance running for a position that is one of the most cleared in the world as far as national and international security? Seems like a no brainer. I say that, but then I remember my only real alternative is Trump, of whom one could say "Do we even want to give that type of clearance to a person like him?" "

It seems plainly obvious to me that criminal negligence was never a real possibility here. Of 60,000+ emails, they found 100 that were classified when sent? And only when they were investigating trumped up Benghazi claims?

You're telling me you seriously think the Secretary of State would face criminal charges for 0.2% of classified emails being improperly handled? I would think as Sec of State a WAY higher percentage of her communications at the time would have been of classified info, so it's impressive they only found .2% in violation. And wouldn't she have the authority to declassify info anyway...?

They can't really administratively punish her now, she can't be fired since she quit, maybe they could levy a fine or something. She might be liable if the classified info somehow leaked due to the practices and someone was harmed, but this didn't happen.

Seems like she would be fine if she admitted she screwed up with the 100 emails, admitted she had the private server because she distrusted government (something easy to spin as a positive), and hope this works.

If the worse thing about Hillary is she sent 100 classified emails from a personal server, of 60,000, then i'm feeling pretty good about her at this point.

7/6/2016 3:31:06 PM

lol .2%

[Edited on July 6, 2016 at 3:36 PM. Reason : that entire post was .2%. introduction, body and closing. all .2%]

7/6/2016 3:36:06 PM

^^ read that again and see if it doesn't sound dumb to you

7/6/2016 3:55:03 PM

^ it does not. Using the wrong email doesn't warrant criminal prosecution.

7/6/2016 5:00:24 PM

Quote :

"^ it does not. Using the wrong email doesn't warrant criminal prosecution. "

If I had sent anything TS on my NIPR account rather than my SIPR, I would have gotten an Article 15 if not a Court Martial.

7/6/2016 5:10:38 PM

And? What does that have to do with a civilian cabinet position?

7/6/2016 5:14:52 PM

She signed the same classified materials training forms as I did

7/6/2016 5:16:20 PM

Which is probably why the FBI recommended administrative action. I'm sure you realize she couldn't be court martialed, or whatever an Article 15 is.

As the Secretary of State, she wrote the rules for the entire department. If she really wanted to, she could have likely successfully lobbied to use her own server, but was probably thinking it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

It's shady, and negligent and irresponsible, but not remotely criminal. She doesnt seem to understand that sent/received emails typically exist on sending and receiving server, so having a private server doesn't gain her much secrecy anyway. It only guarantees that personal emails aren't automatically subject to government review, which is probably what she was going for.

[Edited on July 6, 2016 at 5:22 PM. Reason : ]

7/6/2016 5:19:01 PM

You have zero idea how classification rules work.

Quote :

". If she really wanted to, she could have likely successfully lobbied to use her own server, but was probably thinking it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. "

She tried several times to lobby for ways around security procedures, each time they people in charge of making those decisions say 'lulz, no'. The most notable of instances is when she asked to use her blackberry inside a SCIF.

Also, correct a few other things you've said

Quote :

"And wouldn't she have the authority to declassify info anyway...? "

Nope.

Quote :

" so it's impressive they only found .2% in violation"

Some jobs require a 100% by the books procedures. I used to have one of those jobs. Handling classified data is one of those jobs.

Quote :

" She might be liable if the classified info somehow leaked due to the practices and someone was harmed, but this didn't happen"

You have no idea if this is true.

7/6/2016 5:31:12 PM

Quote :

"You have zero idea how classification rules work. "

The FBI does though, i hope. I haven't read anything to indicate they screwed up their analysis here, and they're saying Clinton wouldn't have been found guilty of anything either.

I appreciate it seems unfair to you that a military grunt has different burdens to bear with classified info than the head of the state department, but the effect of letting thousands of soldiers being lax with security is not the same as the effect of a single, civilian cabinet member, especially when there's no apparent pattern of malfeasance or intent to leak information.

7/6/2016 5:38:33 PM

Quote :

"DiGenova said that Comey's decision was "political" meant to help Clinton. "In doing so he permanently enshrined a double standard in U.S. law enforcement," he said. But Abbe Lowell, an attorney who has been involved in classified information cases as a defense attorney, disagreed. "The FBI Director could not have been more correct," Lowell said in an interview. "The common denominator of every criminal case that has ever been brought under the classified information protection laws is that the individual under investigation intentionally sent material to someone not authorized to receive it -- such as a journalist, foreign country or a government contractor," Lowell said."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/06/politics/comey-clinton-prosecutors/

7/6/2016 6:02:41 PM

Lack of precedence != precedence.

7/6/2016 6:30:19 PM

...and NJP != criminal

I don't know what you did in the military, granted, but I'd be willing to bet mast wouldn't be your first stop for a spill unless it was deliberate, particularly egregious, or you were a shitbird and it was the final straw.

7/6/2016 6:56:30 PM

Handled explosives/certified with special weapons, so yes, my very first fuck up with those would be NJP or Court Martial.

7/6/2016 7:15:19 PM

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/

7/6/2016 7:31:11 PM

Quote :

" If I had sent anything TS on my NIPR account rather than my SIPR, I would have gotten an Article 15 if not a Court Martial."

I hope this was a typo...if you were sending TS on SIPR, then you really fucked up.

7/6/2016 8:54:55 PM

Yeah, I meant Secret. But yeah, anything Secret or TS on NIPR and any TS on SIPR and not JWICS, you're fucked.

[Edited on July 6, 2016 at 9:16 PM. Reason : a]

7/6/2016 9:02:36 PM

This was pretty clearly a direction not to prosecute. Every person I've seen or heard who has done anything with security clearance has been appalled by this. Everyone who isn't a Clinton partisan has said that legally what coney said is entirely contradictory.

She lied under oath to Congress, she deleted 30000+ emails, and she didn't follow protocol to protect classified info. The only reason she isn't facing charges is because she's Hillary Clinton. It's pretty disgraceful really, but not all that surprising.

7/6/2016 9:54:35 PM

bbehe plz. you can't come in here swinging your big dick of insider knowledge complete with a plethora of acronyms, and saying other people "have zero idea how classification rules work," and then fuck up a hypothetical utilizing insider knowledge of said classification rules.

i'm with you in spirit, but you gotta come correct.

7/6/2016 9:57:00 PM

^ Lulz, I know man, I'm disappointed in myself I was going somewhere else with the initial post but deleted half of it and started again.

Oh well, I'm voting for Batman this election.

7/6/2016 9:58:35 PM

Quote :

"She lied under oath to Congress, she deleted 30000+ emails, and she didn't follow protocol to protect classified info. The only reason she isn't facing charges is because she's Hillary Clinton. It's pretty disgraceful really, but not all that surprising."

This is very conspiratorial but stranger things have happened... I just can't believe comey, a republican hired under bush, previously praised by conservatives, would let himself be a patsy for Clinton.

7/6/2016 10:28:07 PM

It's bigger than Comey mane

7/6/2016 10:30:51 PM

Quote :

""Late this afternoon, I met with FBI Director James Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email system during her time as secretary of state," Lynch said in a statement. "I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation," she said."

7/6/2016 10:41:48 PM

Quote :

"I just can't believe comey, a republican hired under bush, previously praised by conservatives, would let himself be a patsy for Clinton."

this pretty much sums up how I feel about all of this

if he's not waving a green flag there's nothing there

7/6/2016 10:47:32 PM

dude his entire message was "look at all that's here...I'm just not gonna recommend indictment."

7/6/2016 11:02:01 PM

Or it was:

Quote :

" "In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.""

Could go either way

7/6/2016 11:05:22 PM

How is that naval case any different than this one?

7/6/2016 11:11:51 PM

Quote :

"but the effect of letting thousands of soldiers being lax with security is not the same as the effect of a single, civilian cabinet member"

Umm, a single fucking cabinet member sending classified information over unsecure nets could be terribly damaging.

Quote :

" it does not. Using the wrong email doesn't warrant criminal prosecution."

hahaha, it does when you're fucking around with TS/SCI stuff.

Quote :

"t seems plainly obvious to me that criminal negligence was never a real possibility here. Of 60,000+ emails, they found 100 that were classified when sent?"

To you, maybe that seems like a pretty good "batting average". To anyone used to dealing with classified info, that is staggeringly, beyond the pale, incomprehensibly terrible.

Quote :

"You're telling me you seriously think the Secretary of State would face criminal charges for 0.2% of classified emails being improperly handled? I would think as Sec of State a WAY higher percentage of her communications at the time would have been of classified info, so it's impressive they only found .2% in violation. "

Dude, what the fuck? Would you get prosecuted for one honest mistake at the SECRET level? Probably not. Would you if you were deliberately doing shit you shouldn't be? Maybe, and you'd very likely lose your clearance (I knew of a guy who got busted bringing home SECRET stuff to study at night, then checking it back in. Lost his clearance and therefore his job.) Dozens of SECRET materials, deliberately doing shit you shouldn't be doing, over the course of years? Anyone else would be toast.

That doesn't even get into the world of TS. TS is a whooooole different ballgame. You do not fuck with TS. One slip-up with that would be bad news...doing it what, EIGHT FUCKING TIMES, because you were deliberately skirting the rules? It's utterly incomprehensible that she didn't get absolutely destroyed for that.



Comey basically laid out the entire case for why they should buttfuck HRC's soul--straight down the fucking checklist--and then said "Ehh, let her walk." The whole thing makes way less sense than it did before his statements.

[Edited on July 6, 2016 at 11:20 PM. Reason : ]

7/6/2016 11:19:28 PM

Yeah, it's utterly incomprehensible. He laid out a perfect case for why she should be prosecuted and then basically said, well, we don't think a reasonable prosecutor could successfully pursue this case, therefore no charges. The people I know who have had any level of clearance are all completely amazed that this resulted in nothing when they would have lost their clearance, been shitcanned and likely charged for this same behavior. It's baffling.

I'm sure it wasn't outright said, but this smells very much like, "if you would like to continue on as director of the FBI or maybe even as something higher up the food chain, you will recommend not bringing charges." Having the AG meeting with Bill a week before is also clearly something that should not have happened if you have even a shred of interest in appearing to be unbiased.

7/6/2016 11:33:40 PM

Quote :

"How is that naval case any different than this one?"

Comey laid out what they use to decide whether or not to prosecute:

1) clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information
2) vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct
3) indications of disloyalty to the United States
4) efforts to obstruct justice

It's the "clearly intentional" part. According to Comey, most of the things found on Clinton's server were discussions of classsified information done in the normal course of her work (or rather information Clinton should've known was classified--the information wasn't marked and it doesn't seem they were sending existing marked materials around). On the other hand, Nishimura went out of his way to copy classified (and presumably marked based on the description) shit from his government computer to his personal computer (clearly intentional and willful). Then there's Petraeus, who gave classified information to his biographer/mistress and then lied about it (clearly intentional plus efforts to obstruct justice).

Clearly not all spills result in criminal charges. Comey pointed out that most people receive "security or administrative sanctions"--i.e., the loss of clearance, loss of job, suspension, NJP, etc. that you, me and all the other lowly cogs would find ourselves getting. How would that even work in Clinton's case?

^ The conspiracy mongering is just stupid.

7/7/2016 12:53:41 AM

ITT a lot of people without TS/SCI talking about what to do with TS/SCI material, ITT

At the very least she should have her clearance permanently revoked.

7/7/2016 1:09:03 AM

She doesn't need a security clearance to be President.

7/7/2016 1:15:16 AM

^^^ Clinton did instruct her staff to remove classification headers so they could use a non-secure fax.

^No, but she does receive intel briefs as a candidate of a major party.

7/7/2016 7:40:42 AM

Except simply removing a header wasn't the extent of her instructions

Quote :

" In the 2011 email exchange about faxing a talking points document, the former secretary of state instructed aide Jake Sullivan to take a secure fax and “turn [it] into nonpaper with no identifying heading and send nonsecure” if technical difficulties with the secure fax system persisted."

Quote :

"A “nonpaper” is a written summary of a diplomatic position or exchange which must not be directly attributable to the U.S. government, according to the State Department website, and it is written on plain stationary without letterhead or watermark. “I need information. I had some points I had to make. And I was looking for a secure fax that could give me the whole picture,” the Democratic presidential candidate said Sunday on CBS. “But, oftentimes, there’s a lot of information that isn’t at all classified. So, whatever information can appropriately be transmitted unclassified often was. That’s true for every agency in the government and everybody who does business with the government,” she said."

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 8:02 AM. Reason : ]

7/7/2016 7:59:51 AM

Paul Ryan asking DNI to remove Clinton's security clearance

7/7/2016 9:39:49 AM

I cant figure out why I walk around everyday realizing how stupid people are these days but then I realize we have voted for a habitual liar who clearly has no business being in the conversation to be president and a crazy racist, sexist asshole who also has no business being in that conversation and those are our two options for president.... Somehow we have managed to make both GW and Obama look like amazing presidential candidates despite all of the evidence that may say otherwise. Seriously how did we end up here?

7/7/2016 9:50:09 AM