no. I am not worried that something that didn't happen happened.

I am worried for the safety of hookers in whatever town you're living in. for all they know, a serial rapist and murderer is in their midst.

do you understand how stupid that is? do you get the point I'm making here?

7/7/2016 2:56:49 PM

Foreign governments knew about the server and it was vulnerable to infiltration. It's pretty naive to think they weren't trying to get in.

But keep making your apples/oranges comparison

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2016 3:01:02 PM

like i said. believe whatever the fuck you want to believe. facts and testimony from the ranking official in the FBI be damned.

I bet you loved Rummy's "unknown knowns" bullshit too

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 3:13 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2016 3:13:35 PM

7/7/2016 3:14:38 PM

yes, not believing in something that there is no proof of is head in the sand.

you bernie bros are a laugh riot.

also, where is the proof that any foreign government knew about the server?

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 3:19 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2016 3:15:54 PM

7/7/2016 3:18:44 PM

that proves nothing. as the FBI director testified, guccifer lied about hacking clinton's server. so there is no way him having that image from another source would have given any foreign government knowledge about a private server at clinton's home.

7/7/2016 3:20:59 PM

that's not actually what he said

7/7/2016 3:21:29 PM

This might not be over

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4609353/fbi-director-comey-comment-clinton-foundation-investigation

CHAFFETZ: WAS THE CLINTON FOUNDATION TIED INTO THIS INVESTIGATION?

COMEY: I'M NOT GOING TO COMMENT ON THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF OTHER INVESTIGATIONS.

CHAFFETZ: WAS THE CLINTON FOUNDATION TIED INTO THIS INVESTIGATION?

COMEY: I'M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT.

7/7/2016 3:21:30 PM

Quote :

"Farenthold: During your investigation did you or anyone in the FBI interview the hacker guccifer Comey: Yes Farenthold: And he claimed he gained access to Sid Blumenthal's email account and traced him back to Clinton's provate server. Can you confirm that Guccifer never gained access to her server? Comey: Yeah he did not. He admitted that was a lie. Farenthold: Allright at least that's good to hear."

like i said. believe whatever the fuck you want to believe.

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 3:27 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2016 3:26:18 PM

No one is talking about Guccifer but you. Comey said a sophisticated hacker would not leave evidence, so we have no way of knowing for sure if it was hacked. All we know is that it was vulnerable and people knew about it. Put 2 and 2 together, I know you can do it.

7/7/2016 3:28:42 PM

Comey testified that the dude who only had limited immunity said he was lying

guccifer is only relevant because it would have been evidence needed for one of the statutes, but other statutes have evidence to show they were violated

7/7/2016 3:34:37 PM

Quote :

"This might not be over http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4609353/fbi-director-comey-comment-clinton-foundation-investigation"

Keep Hope Alive, eh?

7/7/2016 3:57:56 PM

Quote :

"people knew about it"

who knew about it? links please.

you're putting 0+0 together and getting eleventy billion

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 4:04 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2016 4:02:01 PM

isn't the state department investigating the clinton foundation and huma abedin in regards to her quad-employment and things that would have required state department approval? the fbi hasn't ever said they were investigating the foundation have they?

7/7/2016 4:02:13 PM

^^
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2016/06/15/what-russias-dnc-hack-tells-us-about-hillary-clintons-private-email-server/#2495a8833b2a

Also http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/us/hillary-clintons-email-was-probably-hacked-experts-say.html?referer=

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 4:11 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2016 4:06:50 PM

zero proof. pure speculation.

for fucks sake, the entire forbes series of articles hinges on the crux of guccifer's hack actually happening

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 4:34 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2016 4:33:52 PM

Former heads of the DIA, CIA, and NSA and former SecDef Gates have said it's a forgone conclusion that foreign entities had access to the email. Do you really think any foreign government would say 'Yeah man, we got those emails!'

7/7/2016 4:39:32 PM

jet fuel can't melt email servers

7/7/2016 4:45:23 PM

Quote :

"Foreign governments knew about the server and it was vulnerable to infiltration. It's pretty naive to think they weren't trying to get in. But keep making your apples/oranges comparison"

This is kind of a pedantic statement isn't it? All email and computer systems are vulnerable to infiltration. It's out of scope probably for a congressional hearing, but we'd have to know what IT practices were not being followed to know how vulnerable the system was, relatively speaking.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/07/house-oversight-committee-grills-comey-over-clinton-e-mail-findings/

Quote :

"In response to questions about whether Clinton should have been aware that she was sending highly classified data in unclassified e-mails, Comey said, "I don’t think our investigation established she was that sophisticated about classification." (Later in his testimony, Comey elaborated that the lack of sophistication was more technical than understanding the importance of protecting classified data.) Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) responded, "Isn't she an original classification source?"—meaning that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information as Secretary of State. "Yes, she was," Comey replied. "

also

Quote :

"Comey added that he knew "lots of people are saying that there have been lots of cases where there's been prosecution and something is going on here. But that's just not the case." He said no cases based on negligent mishandling of classified data had been prosecuted in the past 50 years. "

I think it's likely clinton lied to congress, she probably knew there were classified emails sent, but if she said things like "to my knowledge..." this gives her plausible deniability. 6-10 emails sent from her that might truly make her culpable makes it possible she couldn't specifically remember those particular emails.

But how does congress going about proving she knew this and lied? there's not a good way without someone recording her saying she was lying.

Quote :

"Under further questioning from Chaffetz, Comey said that the FBI did not look at civil issues, such as violations of the Freedom of Information Act and federal records law, nor did they look at whether Clinton had committed perjury before Congress in sworn testimony wherein she said that she had neither sent nor received classified information via her e-mail. "

I do expect a civil suit on these issues to be filed though.

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 4:52 PM. Reason : ]

7/7/2016 4:47:05 PM

Quote :

"But how does congress going about proving she knew this and lied?"

but that's the beauty of it. they don't have to. all they have to have is a committee who will hold hearings for years on something that's already been investigated and continue to rake mud. that and people whose default setting is "until you 100% prove it to my standard of proof i will never believe it didn't happen"

7/7/2016 4:58:33 PM

Quote :

"jet fuel can't melt email servers "

nice response.

7/7/2016 5:07:15 PM

^^^
She was warned multiple times that it was vulnerable

http://time.com/4348021/hillary-clinton-emails-ig-report/

The sole person who ran the server lacked the proper experience and qualifications

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/12/documents-show-hillarys-email-technician-was-underqualified-for-the-job/

And you can find articles online highlighting specific vulnerabilities

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/256743-clinton-servers-internet-connection-had-vulnerability

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 5:11 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2016 5:11:03 PM

Quote :

"No one is talking about Guccifer but you."

goalielax, you've had a security clearance before. you've ready NDAs before (well, you've signed them at least). you can't tell me with an objective point of view that what secretary clinton did was correct, authorized, sanctioned, or honest. there is honestly no possible way

you know what would have happened if you had committed the same security violations that she did.

so how, in the name of the constitution that you once swore to defend, can you still support hillary clinton?

honestly, how?

7/7/2016 7:17:26 PM

Quote :

"goalielax, you've had a security clearance before. you've ready NDAs before (well, you've signed them at least). you can't tell me with an objective point of view that what secretary clinton did was correct, authorized, sanctioned, or honest. there is honestly no possible way"

I've also held said clearances, but whether what happened was "correct, authorized, sanctioned, or honest" is not the bar that had to be met, and you obviously must know that's the case given your posting ITT.

For the 12th time, as Director Comey said:

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"

Quote :

"so how, in the name of the constitution that you once swore to defend, can you still support hillary clinton?"

What exactly does our oath to defend the Constitution have to do with this issue again? Are you really that far off the fucking reservation to where you consider HRC a domestic enemy of the United States?

[Edited on July 8, 2016 at 12:06 AM. Reason : I mean I get not liking the lady cause I'm with you there, but come the fuck on.]

7/7/2016 11:57:12 PM

no true scotsman could possibly think Hillary doesn't deserve to be indicted, amirite e-dog?

[Edited on July 8, 2016 at 8:56 AM. Reason : y]

7/8/2016 8:52:24 AM

Quote :

" HRC a domestic enemy of the United States?"

i wouldnt go this far but have some serious concerns about possible quid pro quo issues dealing with state dept and foreign donations to clinton foundation. a guy wrote a book about it


again, to me biggest problem i have with the emails is the lying to congress and attempt to destroy evidence after the fact

7/8/2016 8:54:31 AM

Quote :

"a guy wrote a book about it "

lol

7/8/2016 8:57:16 AM

lol indeed close the fucking case on this shit

some asshole wrote a book

case closed

[Edited on July 8, 2016 at 8:59 AM. Reason : also many of the accusations in that book have already been identified as bullshit]

[Edited on July 8, 2016 at 9:00 AM. Reason : and again you bring up destruction of evidence, even though the GOP didn't say a single word about it over 6+ hours]

7/8/2016 8:58:35 AM

Quote :

"For the 12th time, as Director Comey said:"

but she definitely had intent and it was willful though

7/8/2016 9:02:01 AM

Quote :

"nd again you bring up destruction of evidence, even though the GOP didn't say a single word about it over 6+ hour"

false, one guy said they scrubbed the servers. but yeah they dropped the ball on that one



[Edited on July 8, 2016 at 9:03 AM. Reason : s]

7/8/2016 9:02:49 AM

lol dropped the ball. where's all this evidence man? if there was any, they would have been talking about that shit nonstop yesterday since that alone could result in criminal charges. how does that simple fact keep eluding you over and over?

7/8/2016 9:04:55 AM

dude they wiped the servers. dont know how to say it another way

7/8/2016 9:06:13 AM

but you keep saying clinton did that and she didn't

7/8/2016 9:09:29 AM

Quote :

"Comey said: "the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery""

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/05/a-quick-glossary-of-the-technical-terms-in-the-fbi-announcement-about-hillary-clintons-email-server/

7/8/2016 9:19:58 AM

the lawyers

7/8/2016 9:38:32 AM

so she had help committing the crime ok fine

7/8/2016 9:41:43 AM

and yet again, if there had been any reason to dispute Comey's assessment that "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" I'm sure we would have heard about all damn day from the GOP yesterday, and not from beatsunc on TWW.

[Edited on July 8, 2016 at 9:59 AM. Reason : but I'm sure your legal qualifications far surpass theirs so keep on talking]

7/8/2016 9:57:25 AM

there is definitely reason to dispute the part about clearly intentional and willful mishandling - the fact that she wrote emails that contained classified information

7/8/2016 9:59:27 AM

She will be impeached

7/8/2016 5:51:47 PM

Nah, running against Trump will give the Democrats the House and the Senate.

7/8/2016 7:17:04 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-stands-claim-send-receive-classified-information/story?id=40446388


I have no words.

7/8/2016 9:13:06 PM

^its obviously a lie of course but she has to keep repeating it because that's what she said to Congress under oath

7/9/2016 6:00:24 AM

has she lied under oath at all about this? reddit is trying to say that the emails comey mentioned that had (C) for classified parts means that she lied about her marked classified statement, but those emails still didn't have classified headers. she has definitely lied, but i can't find any examples of lying under oath that the reddit types are all worked up over

7/9/2016 12:24:47 PM

Quote :

"CLINTON: It means that they were asked to provide anything that could be possibly construed as work related. In fact, in my opinion -- and that's been confirmed by both the State Department... JORDAN: But I'm asking how -- I'm asking how it was done. Was -- did someone physically look at the 62,000 e-mails, or did you use search terms, date parameters? I want to know the specifics. CLINTON: They did all of that, and I did not look over their shoulders, because I thought it would be appropriate for them to conduct that search, and they did. JORDAN: Will you provide this committee -- or can you answer today, what were the search terms? CLINTON: The search terms were everything you could imagine that might be related to anything, but they also went through every single e-mail."

This was proven to be a lie. The attorneys only used search parameters.

Quote :

"JORDAN: And so there's only one server? Is that what you're telling me? And it's the one server that the FBI has? CLINTON: The FBI has the server that was used during the tenure of my State Department service."

There were multiple servers.

Quote :

"CLINTON: There was nothing marked classified on my e-mails, either sent or receive"

This is a possible lie, since things weren't fully marked as classified because headers were removed, however the portion markings were there. The FBI Director considers portion markings alone as being marked classified.

Quote :

"POMPEO: Yes, ma'am. You're not supposed to have classified e- mail on your private server either. CLINTON: And I did not, Congressman."

Clearly a lie, especially since she didn't use the term 'marked classified'


A lot of her testimony contains phrases like 'I believe', 'everything I had at the time' , 'marked classified' to skirt around the issue, but there are enough gaffes in her testimony.

7/9/2016 12:55:43 PM

i like how she didn't answer Jordan's question, that was slick

7/9/2016 1:16:50 PM

Yeah, her testimony is filled with lawyer talk like that, it's annoying, but I think she did make a couple slip ups.

7/9/2016 1:28:29 PM

http://www.c-span.org/video/?412357-1/attorney-general-loretta-lynch-testifies-capitol-hill

7/12/2016 10:02:03 AM

Quote :

"As part of a lawsuit by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, Hillary Clinton was given 25 questions today to answer within 30 days about her use of a private email server while Secretary of State, with the responses considered to be under oath. “These are simple questions about her email system that we hope will finally result in straight-forward answers, under oath, from Hillary Clinton,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in a written statement. + Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational. + Describe the creation of your clintonemail.com email account, including who decided to create it, when it was created, why it was created, and, if you did not set up the account yourself, who set it up for you. + When did you decide to use a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business and whom did you consult in making this decision? + Identify all communications in which you participated concerning or relating to your decision to use a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business and, for each communication, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the communication. + In a 60 Minutes interview aired on July 24, 2016, you stated that it was “recommended” you use a personal email account to conduct official State Department business. What recommendations were you given about using or not using a personal email account to conduct official State Department business, who made any such recommendations, and when were any such recommendations made? + Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned, was it ever suggested, or did you ever participate in any communication, conversation, or meeting in which it was discussed that your use of a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business conflicted with or violated federal recordkeeping laws. For each instance in which you were so advised, cautioned or warned, in which such a suggestion was made, or in which such a discussion took place, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the advice, caution, warning, suggestion, or discussion. + Your campaign website states, “When Clinton got to the Department, she opted to use her personal email account as a matter of convenience.” What factors other than convenience did you consider in deciding to use a personal email account to conduct official State Department business? Include in your answer whether you considered federal records management and preservation requirements and how email you used to conduct official State Department business would be searched in response to FOIA requests. + After President Obama nominated you to be Secretary of State and during your tenure as secretary, did you expect the State Department to receive FOIA requests for or concerning your email? + During your tenure as Secretary of State, did you understand that email you sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business was subject to FOIA? + During your tenure as Secretary of State, how did you manage and preserve emails in your clintonemail.com email account sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business, and what, if anything, did you do to make those emails available to the Department for conducting searches in response to FOIA requests? + During your tenure as Secretary of State, what, if any, effort did you make to inform the State Department’s records management personnel (e.g., Clarence Finney or the Executive Secretariat’s Office of Correspondence and Records) about your use of a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business? + During your tenure as Secretary of State, did State Department personnel ever request access to your clintonemail.com email account to search for email responsive to a FOIA request? If so, identify the date access to your account was requested, the person or persons requesting access, and whether access was granted or denied. + At the time you decided to use your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business, or at any time thereafter during your tenure as Secretary of State, did you consider how emails you sent to or received from persons who did not have State Department email accounts (i.e., “state.gov” accounts) would be maintained and preserved by the Department or searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests? If so, what was your understanding about how such emails would be maintained, preserved, or searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests? ."

8/30/2016 7:56:59 PM

Quote :

" On March 6, 2009, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Eric J. Boswell wrote in an Information Memo to your Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, that he “cannot stress too strongly, however, that any unclassified BlackBerry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving email, and exploiting calendars.” A March 11, 2009 email states that, in a management meeting with the assistant secretaries, you approached Assistant Secretary Boswell and mentioned that you had read the “IM” and that you “get it.” Did you review the March 6, 2009 Information Memo, and, if so, why did you continue using an unclassified BlackBerry to access your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business? Copies of the March 6, 2009 Information Memo and March 11, 2009 email are attached as Exhibit A for your review. + In a November 13, 2010 email exchange with Huma Abedin about problems with your clintonemail.com email account, you wrote to Ms. Abedin, in response to her suggestion that you use a State Department email account or release your email address to the Department, “Let’s get a separate address or device.” Why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business after agreeing on November 13, 2010 to “get a separate address or device?” Include in your answer whether by “address” you meant an official State Department email account (i.e., a “state.gov” account) and by “device” you meant a State Department-issued BlackBerry. A copy of the November 13, 2010 email exchange with Ms. Abedin is attached as Exhibit B for your review. + Email exchanges among your top aides and assistants in August 30, 2011 discuss providing you with a State Department-issued BlackBerry or State Department email address. In the course of these discussions, State Department Executive Secretary Stephen Mull wrote, “[W]e are working to provide the Secretary per her request a Department issued BlackBerry to replace her personal unit which is malfunctioning (possibly because of her personal email server is down). We will prepare two versions for her to use – one with an operating State Department email account (which would mask her identity, but which would also be subject to FOIA requests).” Similarly, John Bentel, the Director of Information and Records Management in the Executive Secretariat, wrote, “You should be aware that any email would go through the Department’s infrastructure and [be] subject to FOIA searches.” Did you request a State Department issued Blackberry or a State Department email account in or around August 2011, and, if so, why did you continue using your personal device and clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business instead of replacing your device and account with a State Department-issued BlackBerry or a State Department email account? Include in your answer whether the fact that a State Department-issued BlackBerry or a State Department email address would be subject to FOIA affected your decision. Copies of the email exchanges are attached as Exhibit C for your review. + In February 2011, Assistant Secretary Boswell sent you an Information Memo noting “a dramatic increase since January 2011 in attempts . . . to compromise the private home email accounts of senior Department officials.” Assistant Secretary Boswell “urge[d] Department users to minimize the use of personal web-email for business.” Did you review Assistant Secretary Boswell’s Information Memo in or after February 2011, and, if so, why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business? Include in your answer any steps you took to minimize use of your clintonemail.com email account after reviewing the memo. A copy of Assistant Secretary Boswell’s February 2011 Information Memo is attached as Exhibit D for your review. + On June 28, 2011, you sent a message to all State Department personnel about securing personal email accounts. In the message, you noted “recent targeting of personal email accounts by online adversaries” and directed all personnel to “[a]void conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.” Why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business after June 28, 2011, when you were advising all State Department Personnel to avoid doing so? A copy of the June 28, 2011 message is attached as Exhibit E for your review. + Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned about hacking or attempted hacking of your clintonemail.com email account or the server that hosted your clintonemail.com account and, if so, what did you do in response to the advice, caution, or warning? + When you were preparing to leave office, did you consider allowing the State Department access to your clintonemail.com email account to manage and preserve the official emails in your account and to search those emails in response to FOIA requests? If you considered allowing access to your email account, why did you decide against it? If you did not consider allowing access to your email account, why not? + After you left office, did you believe you could alter, destroy, disclose, or use email you sent or received concerning official State Department business as you saw fit? If not, why not? + In late 2014, the State Department asked that you make available to the Department copies of any federal records of which you were aware, “such as an email sent or received on a personal email account while serving as Secretary of State.” After you left office but before your attorneys reviewed the email in your clintonemail.com email account in response to the State Department’s request, did you alter, destroy, disclose, or use any of the email in the account or authorize or instruct that any email in the account be altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used? If so, describe any email that was altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used, when the alteration, destruction, disclosure, or use took place, and the circumstances under which the email was altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used? A copy of a November 12, 2014 letter from Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy regarding the State Department’s request is attached as Exhibit F for your review. + After your lawyers completed their review of the emails in your clintonemail.com email account in late 2014, were the electronic versions of your emails preserved, deleted, or destroyed? If they were deleted or destroyed, what tool or software was used to delete or destroy them, who deleted or destroyed them, and was the deletion or destruction done at your direction? + During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts. + Identify all communications between you and Brian Pagliano concerning or relating to the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of any emails in your clintonemail.com email account, including any instruction or direction to Mr. Pagliano about the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of emails in your account when transferring the clintonemail.com email system to any alternate or replacement server. For each communication, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the communication."

8/30/2016 7:57:32 PM