RE: Hillary's E-Mails

RE: Hillary's E-Mails (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MercTech -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (4/4/2015 8:46:05 AM)
Emails and official government business. Irregardless of any classification or security concerns; using a private email server to conduct official government business would not be lawful due to requirements for records retention. The dot GOV email servers are IMAP servers that do 100% retention and archiving of all emails. This meets the legal retention requirements for official government documents. Destruction of official government documents is a criminal offense. If you are using an IMAP server; deleting your emails from your computer in no way deletes them from the server. Mist private email is by a POP server. The emails are deleted from the server upon download or at a certain age depending on the server settings. This type of tech does not meet the retention requirements under law for doing official government business. If you want to use a personal computer for doing official government business; you would need to do a VPN connection to an official government network and use the official IMAP server on the official network. If you are a contractor interfacing with official government networks; there is a tapdance you have to do to meet computer security and records retention requirements. Often, a contractor is not given an account for direct access to government networks. Example: Data collection and compilation into a report is done on the contractor's computer. The data report is emailed to a contact person in the government. The report is then saved to the official network and comes under the data retention laws. If the contractor is smart; he also archives his rough notes and draft copy of the report in case his reports are ever the subject of an investigation. One of the odd things comes into play when dealing with SNM, DHS, or proprietary government information. It doesn't actually get a security classification until the data is saved on an "official" network. But, presence on site for such work constitutes permission for search and that includes the contents of your computer. No checking cmail from my work laptop.

thishereboi -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (4/4/2015 9:01:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Don't spend any of your valuable time worrying about me. It's painfully obvious you have more important matters to attend to. I understand some lefty made a post on another thread....fetch Ubo fetch [:)] I was referring to the ones who according to you are going to come unhinged and in a way actually agreeing with you that not only might they become unhinged but I think it's stupid of them if they do. Perhaps some reading comprehension lessons are in order. But I understand if you just want to keep trolling.

bounty44 -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (4/4/2015 9:07:15 AM)
i think the server Hillary used is one that was initially set up for bill Clinton's home office...I've not seen anything in the news as to its specs but hopefully, some investigator is going to get his hands on it soon and tell us all about it.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (4/4/2015 9:31:32 AM)
Joether: blah-blah...Bush...blah-blah...FOX News...blah-blah...conserconservatives...blah-blah...everybody on the right does it. So...once again, your standard answer when someone from the left is proven to have lied. You said, maybe everyone should be required to have legitimate proof before they say anything. That would shut too many people up, including every news show out there. And I don't really care about commentators. But...for politicians to have to abide this? I'm good. But think of how silent Harry Reid would have had to have been during the 2012 campaign.

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (4/4/2015 9:34:04 AM)
What lie, cuz I am missing that. Think of how silent the right would have had to have been since before Joe McCarthy till this very instant in time, and beyond.

slvemike4u -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (4/4/2015 11:11:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Don't spend any of your valuable time worrying about me. It's painfully obvious you have more important matters to attend to. I understand some lefty made a post on another thread....fetch Ubo fetch [:)] I was referring to the ones who according to you are going to come unhinged and in a way actually agreeing with you that not only might they become unhinged but I think it's stupid of them if they do. Perhaps some reading comprehension lessons are in order. But I understand if you just want to keep trolling. Say's collarspace's biggest troll.....lol,the fucking irony [:D]

CreativeDominant -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (4/4/2015 11:36:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail What lie, cuz I am missing that. Think of how silent the right would have had to have been since before Joe McCarthy till this very instant in time, and beyond. Check any of the news stories I cited, Ron...even the liberal one. They all made note of his lie.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (4/5/2015 7:20:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: there is no real "Hillary derangement syndrome" Unfortunately, denial is one of the symptoms. You must have it too, DC, or are you going to deny it? [8D]

bounty44 -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (4/5/2015 10:29:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 i think the server Hillary used is one that was initially set up for bill Clinton's home office...I've not seen anything in the news as to its specs but hopefully, some investigator is going to get his hands on it soon and tell us all about it. [image]local://upfiles/1936645/F9ACD399F1B9403281458204B9B058D8.jpg[/image]

dcnovice -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (4/5/2015 11:21:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: there is no real "Hillary derangement syndrome" Unfortunately, denial is one of the symptoms. You must have it too, DC, or are you going to deny it? [8D] I had the Bush strain, and it was rough. [;)]

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (4/6/2015 6:23:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail What lie, cuz I am missing that. Think of how silent the right would have had to have been since before Joe McCarthy till this very instant in time, and beyond. Check any of the news stories I cited, Ron...even the liberal one. They all made note of his lie. Still didnt see a lie. Unless republicans saying 'death panels', 'Obama is taking your guns away', 'we are fiscally responsible', 'There are WMD in Iraq', 'deficits don't matter', and all the way downtown are lies. I have always considered that political rhetoric. And we know he didnt pay taxes based on his cayman holdings.

bounty44 -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (4/6/2015 6:42:05 AM)
"Why the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal Won’t Go Away" quote: Ever wonder why some scandals stick like Krazy Glue and become career-killers while others are a momentary blip on the radar–here today, gone tomorrow?... does Hillary Clinton’s email scandal have “legs”? Might it derail her presidential aspirations? Will the wound leave a permanent scar–and if so, is the wound potentially fatal? The answer is YES. The reason why is revealed in the three-point litmus test: How to Evaluate a Political Scandal 1.Does the scandal reinforce a preexisting narrative? For a scandal to gain traction, it must reinforce a negative perception about a brand... 2. Is the scandal a one-off, or is it part of an ongoing series of news stories? A one-off scandal is unpleasant, but it’s usually not fatal. A candidate can take his/her lumps and recover because the goal isn’t to win the PR cycle today or tomorrow; it’s to win the PR cycle on Election Day. But if the story has “legs” and will be drawn-out in a slew of subsequent news stories, op-eds, TV news segments, etc., the scandal becomes a personal pandemic... 3. Can you “connect the dots” to script a scenario where something deplorable and/or illegal has happened?... So far, commentators on the left and right have vastly underappreciated the severity of Hillary Clinton’s latest scandal. It’s extraordinarily toxic to her long-term brand because all three points of the litmus test are met with flying colors: One, it reinforces the preexisting narrative of Secretary Clinton being overly secretive, calculating, dishonest, and playing fast and loose with the law. It’s a Leona Helmsley-like attitude: “only the little people” have to follow the rules–but not the Clintons! It’s, well, Clintonesque–but without the charm. Two, the scandal will be absolutely, 100 percent, connected to a slew of upcoming news stories, particularly since the Republicans control Congress: Will she be required to testify under oath? (Probably.) What, exactly, were in the emails? Were her aides’ emails also on the server? Were her aides’ emails destroyed, too? Can the deleted emails be recovered? Does it relate to Benghazi? Will any emails to/from Secretary Clinton emerge from other email accounts that she neglected to disclose? Did her emails cross-pollinate with Clinton Foundation fundraising? And on and on… By refusing to allow a third party to examine her emails, Mrs. Clinton has created a who-dunnit mystery with an infinite shelf-life. Three, you can most certainly connect the dots to script a scenario where Mrs. Clinton’s motives were self-serving (shielding herself from public scrutiny). Furthermore, deciding on her own to delete whichever government emails she wishes could clearly have legal consequences. She violated the intent of the rules; we just don’t know if she also violated criminal statutes. It’s still very early. This is a scandal writ large in embryotic form. So yes, this scandal will eventually scar the Hillary Clinton brand. But worst of all for Clinton’s presidential ambitions, the wound is still bleeding. And if it continues to bleed, the scar the wound leaves behind won’t just be cosmetic. It’ll be fatal. one can hope... http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/28/why-the-hillary-clinton-email-scandal-wont-go-away/

Sanity -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (4/6/2015 8:15:43 AM)
Theres blood in the water, and the Democrat primary contest is beginning to circle... The Republicans wont have to do much.

slvemike4u -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (4/6/2015 9:11:57 AM)
Lol,except of course deciding,from a crowded flawed field,who the fuck they are going to nominate themselves.... Yeah,they don't have to do much....lol.

KenDckey -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (4/6/2015 11:11:11 AM)
I am in agreement that the field for the Reps is kinda large. Definately gonna take some time to sort it all out.

slvemike4u -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (4/6/2015 11:33:09 AM)
It's not that it's so large,it's that it's so devoid of any actual talent. It's a contest between mediocrities,none of which IMO has an actual chance of winning. Which ,whether you believe me or not,is an issue. Americans are supposed to be able to choose between two VIABLE choices. The Republicans have failed to reach their burden the last two times out(far longer if one considers how unsuited Bush was to be President,notwithstanding the error made by the voters)

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (4/6/2015 11:46:36 AM)
It might be large, and the clown car is really a bus, but nobody will be given a license to drive.

joether -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (4/6/2015 12:29:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Joether: blah-blah...Bush...blah-blah...FOX News...blah-blah...conserconservatives...blah-blah...everybody on the right does it. What is a "...conserconservatives..."? Is that like 'more than' a conservative? Is that like a Newspeak word? You going 'Orwellian' on us man? I'm teasing here. I've 'fucked' the English language from time to time. So I'm not going to be the grammar/spelling Nazi here.... onto the discussion: Everyone on the right does do it.... And they are all conservative.... ...or at least, trying to show they are more conservative than everyone else. Like trying to prove one person's 'pure white' is more 'pure white' than another person's 'pure white'. I find it amusing when you can not contest anything I stated. Says 'air tight case' was made. quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant So...once again, your standard answer when someone from the left is proven to have lied. When....ANYONE....is accused of a criminal action, I stated I'm in favor of a fair trial for that person. With access to a lawyer, and all the benefits found within the US Constitution that pertain to things. I've stated this of individuals I think might be guilty of what they are being accused of. Regardless of any other factors, including political party. Its one thing to access someone of lying in political theater; but under criminal action, I want to see the evidence and hear the argument before deciding on guilt. Bill Clinton was impeached for what? Having an affair while in office. Did it affect his day job? No, it did not. So why did the matter stick? Because it was politically motivated and pushed for political points by the Republican controlled Congress. A few years later, another man, was not impeached. Even though both men lied while in the White House; the second was not impeached for the lies that got thousands of our troops KILLED. An the Congress that would impeach that President? The same Republican controlled Congress! An why did they not 'do their duty as an equal branch of power in government'? Because it was politically motivated and pushed for political points by the Republican controlled Congress. Not one conservative on here has made a case for 'why', Mrs Clinton should be investigated here, without political motivation. Since its plain as daylight that not one conservative or libertarian has a prayer against her in the up coming general election. Rather than deal with her straight up and honest, the Republican/Tea Party has to push things for political motivations....NOT.....because of criminal issues. Not one person has challenged me here. Not even you! quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant You said, maybe everyone should be required to have legitimate proof before they say anything. That would shut too many people up, including every news show out there. And I don't really care about commentators. But...for politicians to have to abide this? I'm good. Wouldn't stop most media sources. Since most of them do a due diligence on vetting their information. That when the call on opinion, it does bear out pretty well with facts rather than pushing an agenda. They understand their audience is the type that is 'put off' by the type of crap common on FOX 'news'. Where stories are heavily pushed with opinion and silly bullshit. I would rather listen to NPR, then any of the best three conservative talk radio hosts on the air. Because NPR gives out factual information minus the political agenda. Which is why after each 'State of the Union' speech its often fun to see how much is hype and how much is based on facts. President Obama has done very well at avoiding the hype. Now if only conservatives in that same room would do the same..... quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant But think of how silent Harry Reid would have had to have been during the 2012 campaign. Your going to bring this up, given former Rep. Michelle Bachmann's existence at the national level? Your complaining about a small 'hill' produced by garden ants; compared to the titanic forces that created Mount Everest.

bounty44 -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (4/7/2015 5:29:54 AM)
quote: General Michael Flynn, the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, appeared on Megyn Kelly’s program last night. When asked what the odds are that China, Russia or another country hacked into Hillary Clinton’s private email system, he responded “very high.” "The further down this rabbit hole we go, the worse it looks. "Keith C. Burris of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has had a change of heart on the issue. "He wrote this yesterday: "Hillary’s email is a story that shouldn’t go away. Maybe it was just contrariness, but my first reaction to the Hillary Clinton email story was a shrug. I think that first reaction was wrong. I don’t mean politically. I’m not sure the story — mini-scandal, if you will — will matter politically, except insofar as it is one more piece of baggage Ms. Clinton carries onto a flight that is already dangerously overloaded. But I think there are lessons here, both large and local. It looks to me like Ms. Clinton broke the spirit, and probably the letter, of the law. That’s a pretty stark and sobering realization."" http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/04/intel-expert-hillarys-emails-a-national-security-risk/

bounty44 -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (4/7/2015 5:32:13 AM)
"Not one conservative on here has made a case for 'why', Mrs Clinton should be investigated here, without political motivation." well then you have pretty self-serving selective reading skills.

Page: << < prev 19 20 [21] 22 23 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875