RE: Hillary Probed

RE: Hillary Probed (Full Version)

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

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/2/2016 7:14:18 AM)
Copied from one of the other nutsucker slobber blogs, word for word, its making the rounds. Hillary hit piece by a sanders guy. Unfortunately for the free market communist nutsuckers, it is still every bit an op-ed of a factless nobody no matter who prints it. Still jacking the dicks and shitting the pants.

bounty44 -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/2/2016 7:44:06 AM)
sorry comrade, its still the huffington post, and well, facts are facts no matter who writes them aren't they? maybe if you close your eyes really tight, put your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalalala I cant hearrrrrrrrr you", that would help?

Lucylastic -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/2/2016 7:52:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 sorry comrade, its still the huffington post, and well, facts are facts no matter who writes them aren't they? hes a blooger with an opinion. oh and un ashamedly bernie supporter. It still doestn give anything new factually. just gossip on a site that allows alll kinds of views. He isnt "in the mix" its like your views. Mine too, Just opinion. How are you finding the news that the fbi are using between 12-50(depending on your source) not 147 people?? what did you make of the correction to the original story.... Are you comfortable with the level of ugliness the talk of punishing women is going to? how about the chances of the brokered convention, or the lack of foreign policy in the guy with the most votes so far, not ruling europe out of being nuked... ? What about your happiness concerning the anti LGBT bills being signed or not? or are you so fixated on hillaries emails that you cant function logically outside this topic????? Your edit is soooo ironic.

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/2/2016 8:56:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 sorry comrade, its still the huffington post, and well, facts are facts no matter who writes them aren't they? maybe if you close your eyes really tight, put your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalalala I cant hearrrrrrrrr you", that would help? No, my communist no information friend. Were you to quit gobbling up nutsucker felching blogs you could go to a dictionary and find the necessary and suffiicent conditions that define facts. Then maybe you could get honest consideration occasionally, no matter how fucking ignorant the asswipe notions you present are. Doubtful. But perhaps you have some secret decoder ring and you can enumerate the actual facts presented in the article. Didn't think so.

Phydeaux -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/2/2016 3:11:04 PM)
Amusig bit reported in The HILL today: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/274978-top-clinton-aide-abedin-terrifying-to-have-emails-released Huma abedin found it terrifying that her emails with her boss could be read by the public. Hello. Did you kind of miss the bit where government emails are supposed to be available to the public,unless there's a reason to classify them? Only crooks fear transparency.

Lucylastic -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/2/2016 8:17:09 PM)
Hmmmm did you actually read the transcript of the podcast? What she was talking about , IN CONTEXT? Would you like the transcript? Or listen to the audio???

Phydeaux -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/3/2016 8:53:52 PM)
Did you have a point to make? I read the article. I found the attitude telling.

Lucylastic -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/3/2016 10:26:12 PM)
Lol

bounty44 -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/4/2016 7:15:21 AM)
this is a two parter: "Hillary's 'classified' smokescreen hides real crime: Column" quote: Since the beginning of the Clinton email scandal, the nation has been subjected to a political and criminal defense generated smokescreen. The Clinton campaign has attempted to make the public believe that she is not guilty of anything because the information on her very unprotected server was not “marked as classified” or “classified at the time.” The applicable statute, 18 USC 793, however, does not even once mention the word “classified.” The focus is on “information respecting the national defense” that potentially “could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” 793 (f) specifically makes it a crime for anyone “entrusted with … any document ... or information relating to the national defense … through gross negligence (to permit) the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.” A jury (not a Democrat or Republican political administration) is, of course, the best body to determine gross negligence on the facts of this case... The fact that the information does not have to be “marked classified” at the time only makes sense because sometimes, as in the case of the Clinton case and other 793 cases, the information is originated and distributed before any security officer can perform a review and put a classification mark on it. So why has this not been discussed in the television and print media? Why has Clinton not been grilled by her interviewers as to whether her emails contained national defense information that could harm the U.S.? Why has everyone bought into the “marked classified” rabbit trail? One suspects that many reporters and commentators have not bothered to read the actual law or are hesitant to blow the central defense of the Clinton campaign out of the water. and the second part: quote: Regardless, I am not confidant that the Justice Department will indict. It is true that part of the reason is that the political appointees who make the final decisions will at least unconsciously be searching for ways to evaluate the case in a way that would evade an obvious debacle for the Democratic Party. But there is more to it. Spending 25 years as an attorney and supervisor in U.S. Attorney’s offices and working with Main Justice in Washington provides an understanding of the process. Main Justice has not always had a reputation for being strong and aggressive, especially in the face of an intimidating defense. What a DA will indict in a week, and a U.S. Attorney in a month, will take Justice more than a year if they ever pull the trigger at all. They tend to be hamstrung by endless memos, briefs, meetings and approvals from multiple levels and divisions. There sometimes appears to be an institutional fear of losing, however minimal the chance. This is an endemic characteristic of many bureaucracies. Unfortunately, it is likely that, at this very moment, many good lawyers at DOJ may be using all sorts of sophistry and rationalization to try to avoid applying the plain language of the law to Hilary Clinton. A jury, which should make the final decision, may never get the chance. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/04/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-legal-definition-national-defense-information-classification-column/82446130/

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/4/2016 7:29:26 AM)
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (1) gross negligence: n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil. If one has borrowed or contracted to take care of another's property, then gross negligence is the failure to actively take the care one would of his/her own property. If gross negligence is found by the trier of fact (judge or jury), it can result in the award of punitive damages on top of general and special damages. (well, we have to flush that toilet) (2) we have testimony thru several hearings the server was not compromised. (second flush, same as the first)

Phydeaux -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/4/2016 4:29:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail (well, we have to flush that toilet) (2) we have testimony thru several hearings the server was not compromised. No we don't. That is an outright lie. Please provide a mainline cite that says the server was not compromised.

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/4/2016 5:03:03 PM)
please provide mainline, credible citations that said it was. I am not the one making incredible claims here. (be careful, of course I can provide some pretty good stuff, it bites your ass every time) Then we will discuss why these non-extant 'hacked' documents haven't been plastered all over the net by anonymous, wikileaks, russia, china, and so on like the oh so 'secure' government server stuff has. ,

Phydeaux -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/4/2016 5:05:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail (well, we have to flush that toilet) (2) we have testimony thru several hearings the server was not compromised. No we don't. That is an outright lie. Please provide a mainline cite that says the server was not compromised. quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail please provide mainline, credible citations that said it was. I am not the one making incredible claims here. (be careful, of course I can provide some pretty good stuff, it bites your ass every time) Sorry Mnotter - you're the one claiming that we have testimony proving the server was not compromised. You are lying. No such testimony exists, nor is it possible for someone to credibly make that claim. The only thing one could say is that they have no evidence that the server has been compromised - and no one has said that either.

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/4/2016 5:14:38 PM)
response to #651 and #653 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-clinton-emails-hack-20151007-story.html and of course: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/security-logs-of-hillary-clintons-email-server-are-said-to-show-no-evidence-of-hacking.html Theres a couple. And they have said that. I will withdraw hearings because I cannot find it quickly and have no desire to look for it, I have demolished over half your propaganda provided you by some nutsucker slobber blog or your own imagination. The toilet is still flushed.

Phydeaux -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/4/2016 10:38:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail response to #651 and #653 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-clinton-emails-hack-20151007-story.html and of course: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/security-logs-of-hillary-clintons-email-server-are-said-to-show-no-evidence-of-hacking.html Theres a couple. And they have said that. I will withdraw hearings because I cannot find it quickly and have no desire to look for it, I have demolished over half your propaganda provided you by some nutsucker slobber blog or your own imagination. And of course, neither of your quotes say there were no hacks of Mrs. Clintons server, either before the firewall was implimented (when the server was unguarded) or afterwards. They said what I said they said - which is they had no evidence of a hack. Really, what do you suppose the guy that was in charge of her server was going to say - oh yes, I detected evidence of a hack, so I put in a low cost firewall to protect the top secret information on Hilary's server. This clown has no background in security. He is as qualified as you are to talk about hacking - which means not at all. For example. Clinton's site used no TLS certificate. Which instantly renders it vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack. Which means all of those vaunted security logs would be instantly worthless. Secondly, they had no secure login requirements. Which means that an IP spoofing attack would also work, and also render any security log null and void. A 4 digit clear text password would be guessed in under 1 minute by a dictionary hack. The State Department with all its government money, has been hacked numerous times, including nov, 2014. It is fair to say that if the state department could be hacked, that Mrs. Clintons email server with its $149 firewall could be hacked, and hacked easily.

Phydeaux -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/4/2016 10:55:36 PM)
When considering the implications of this, consider: Clinton used a cloud based backup system. Clinton used a cloud based spam blocking system (mxlogic). This is just the public information we know. Not only did every single confidential and top secret email reside on her server to be hacked - it also existed on the backup, as well as some of the emails, and the complete history of her emails existed at MXLogic - multiplying the potential points of vulnerability. Her firewall would have scanned incoming and probably outgoing emails for viruses etc- and logged their destination, person sending and person receiving - again, another point of vulernability.

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/5/2016 3:50:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail response to #651 and #653 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-clinton-emails-hack-20151007-story.html and of course: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/security-logs-of-hillary-clintons-email-server-are-said-to-show-no-evidence-of-hacking.html Theres a couple. And they have said that. I will withdraw hearings because I cannot find it quickly and have no desire to look for it, I have demolished over half your propaganda provided you by some nutsucker slobber blog or your own imagination. And of course, neither of your quotes say there were no hacks of Mrs. Clintons server, either before the firewall was implimented (when the server was unguarded) or afterwards. They said what I said they said - which is they had no evidence of a hack. Really, what do you suppose the guy that was in charge of her server was going to say - oh yes, I detected evidence of a hack, so I put in a low cost firewall to protect the top secret information on Hilary's server. This clown has no background in security. He is as qualified as you are to talk about hacking - which means not at all. For example. Clinton's site used no TLS certificate. Which instantly renders it vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack. Which means all of those vaunted security logs would be instantly worthless. Secondly, they had no secure login requirements. Which means that an IP spoofing attack would also work, and also render any security log null and void. A 4 digit clear text password would be guessed in under 1 minute by a dictionary hack. The State Department with all its government money, has been hacked numerous times, including nov, 2014. It is fair to say that if the state department could be hacked, that Mrs. Clintons email server with its $149 firewall could be hacked, and hacked easily. Oh, they do. There is no evidence of a hack. That is the testimony. Period. There is no hack. Over. there is no hack. Done.

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/5/2016 3:52:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux When considering the implications of this, consider: Clinton used a cloud based backup system. Clinton used a cloud based spam blocking system (mxlogic). This is just the public information we know. Not only did every single confidential and top secret email reside on her server to be hacked - it also existed on the backup, as well as some of the emails, and the complete history of her emails existed at MXLogic - multiplying the potential points of vulnerability. Her firewall would have scanned incoming and probably outgoing emails for viruses etc- and logged their destination, person sending and person receiving - again, another point of vulernability. considering the implications of this..........done. There was no hack. the public servers that rice and powell used were certainly 'cloud' in their entirety. Everything that goes here to ther on public backbones, and international backbones is vulnerable.

bounty44 -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/5/2016 4:06:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I have demolished over half your propaganda provided you by some nutsucker slobber blog or your own imagination. The toilet is still flushed. you've done no such thing. what you do is repeat liberal & clintonian myths and lies, employ false equivalencies, and for the most part, complain about the source in a vulgar and juvenile way. sorry comrade in terms of critical thinking and refutations, that doesn't fly. as ive said before, if you were a student doing this, youd fail and if this were your job, youd be fired. you might just as well be working on her staff. I cant remember if ive already shared the dictionary definition of "delusional" with you, but just in case not, here it is again: delusional [dih-loo-zhuh-nl] adjective 1.having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions: Senators who think they will get agreement on a comprehensive tax bill are delusional. 2. Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness: He was so delusional and paranoid that he thought everybody was conspiring against him.

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/5/2016 4:11:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I have demolished over half your propaganda provided you by some nutsucker slobber blog or your own imagination. The toilet is still flushed. you've done no such thing. what you do is complain about the source in a vulgar and juvenile way. sorry comrade in terms of critical thinking and refutations, that doesn't fly. I cant remember if ive already shared the dictionary definition of "delusional" with you, but just in case not, here it is again: delusional [dih-loo-zhuh-nl] adjective 1.having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions: Senators who think they will get agreement on a comprehensive tax bill are delusional. 2. Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness: He was so delusional and paranoid that he thought everybody was conspiring against him. Oh, no such thing is true, it is simply nutsucker toiletlicking and craven felching. Testimony by the expert who ran the server, and actual logs from the device (in the hands of the FBI forensics) show no hack. Done, over, finished. No other credible citations to the contrary. nutsuckerly delusional [dih-loo-zhuh-nl] adjective 1.having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions: Believing that the Director of the FBI is giving personal interviews to nutsucker slobber bloggers. 2. Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness: Q.E.D.

Page: << < prev 31 32 [33] 34 35 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625