John Kerry Joins Hilary

John Kerry Joins Hilary (Full Version)

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

Message

KenDckey -> John Kerry Joins Hilary (2/3/2016 12:22:12 AM)
quote: http://news.yahoo.com/kerry-used-private-email-send-clinton-now-classified-222700568--politics.html WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department said Tuesday that John Kerry, when he was a senator, used a private email account to send information now deemed classified to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her personal server. Spokesman John Kirby said then-Senator Kerry used a "non-official account" to send a May 19, 2011, message to Clinton and then-national security adviser Tom Donilon. Portions of the message were classified as "secret" last week and censored when it was released along with about another 1,000 of Clinton's emails on Friday. The non-redacted portions of the message in question refer to developments in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Maybe they should outlaw private e-mail accounts for all politicians until they leave office.

DesideriScuri -> RE: John Kerry Joins Hilary (2/3/2016 5:13:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: http://news.yahoo.com/kerry-used-private-email-send-clinton-now-classified-222700568--politics.html WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department said Tuesday that John Kerry, when he was a senator, used a private email account to send information now deemed classified to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her personal server. Spokesman John Kirby said then-Senator Kerry used a "non-official account" to send a May 19, 2011, message to Clinton and then-national security adviser Tom Donilon. Portions of the message were classified as "secret" last week and censored when it was released along with about another 1,000 of Clinton's emails on Friday. The non-redacted portions of the message in question refer to developments in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Maybe they should outlaw private e-mail accounts for all politicians until they leave office. That might not be a bad idea, going forward. How does information go from being unclassified to being classified, sometimes years later? Just to point out, just from what you posted, it doesn't sound like Kerry did anything illegal, or that the information he sent was classified at the time it was sent.

joether -> RE: John Kerry Joins Hilary (2/3/2016 9:05:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: http://news.yahoo.com/kerry-used-private-email-send-clinton-now-classified-222700568--politics.html WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department said Tuesday that John Kerry, when he was a senator, used a private email account to send information now deemed classified to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her personal server. Spokesman John Kirby said then-Senator Kerry used a "non-official account" to send a May 19, 2011, message to Clinton and then-national security adviser Tom Donilon. Portions of the message were classified as "secret" last week and censored when it was released along with about another 1,000 of Clinton's emails on Friday. The non-redacted portions of the message in question refer to developments in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Maybe they should outlaw private e-mail accounts for all politicians until they leave office. You could run into violations of the 1st amendment.

Lucylastic -> RE: John Kerry Joins Hilary (2/3/2016 9:33:23 AM)
as long as EVERYBODIES emails are scrutinized in the same way, in state and fed yanno ;like the millions of emails that went missing in la bush 's time, there is also cheneys, rumsfelds, rices, powells, jeb Bush, and all the rest of the email ooooppsy crowd. But no...republicans never lie, if they are evangelical christians they have a moral prohibition against it too apparently.... Making something classified retroactively simply does not mean it was wrongly classified before, only that it has SINCE Become classified quote: How does information go from being unclassified to being classified, sometimes years later? a player in the past who wasnt relevant then..could be relevant now, leaders ...change...players change... situations change. Its easy

Phydeaux -> RE: John Kerry Joins Hilary (2/3/2016 10:49:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic as long as EVERYBODIES emails are scrutinized in the same way, in state and fed yanno ;like the millions of emails that went missing in la bush 's time, there is also cheneys, rumsfelds, rices, powells, jeb Bush, and all the rest of the email ooooppsy crowd. But no...republicans never lie, if they are evangelical christians they have a moral prohibition against it too apparently.... Making something classified retroactively simply does not mean it was wrongly classified before, only that it has SINCE Become classified quote: How does information go from being unclassified to being classified, sometimes years later? a player in the past who wasnt relevant then..could be relevant now, leaders ...change...players change... situations change. Its easy Repeating bullshit doesn't make it true. the law doesn't care if information is marked top secret or not. The law says that clinton had to safe guard information that is secret. Setting up an insecure server for the purposes of bypassing the Federal Archives Records is illegal. Transfering (and instructing your staff) to transfer emails from the state department secure email server to an insecure server is illegal. Information that originates from foreign govenments is secret - and clinton received instruction on this point and agreed to it in writing the day she was sworn in. Top secret information involving methods and sources is readily and OBVIOUSLY top secret from content; Putting this on an insecure server is illegal. And making the allegation that "bush did it too" is not a defense.

Lucylastic -> RE: John Kerry Joins Hilary (2/3/2016 10:54:39 AM)
[/quote] Repeating bullshit doesn't make it true. [/quote] You should know.... yet you do it almost every post.

ifmaz -> RE: John Kerry Joins Hilary (2/3/2016 9:11:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey ... Maybe they should outlaw private e-mail accounts for all politicians until they leave office. You could run into violations of the 1st amendment. The government is not limiting speech, they are monitoring a person holding public office's email because of federal laws surrounding national security, Freedom of Information Act requirements, etc, roughly analogous to Sarbanes/Oxley section 802(a) which details email retention for certain types of companies. One could argue the act of monitoring email means employees (or public officials) behave differently, but one could also argue that behavior is more in-line with expectations of the position in the first place.

BamaD -> RE: John Kerry Joins Hilary (2/4/2016 2:14:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey ... Maybe they should outlaw private e-mail accounts for all politicians until they leave office. You could run into violations of the 1st amendment. The government is not limiting speech, they are monitoring a person holding public office's email because of federal laws surrounding national security, Freedom of Information Act requirements, etc, roughly analogous to Sarbanes/Oxley section 802(a) which details email retention for certain types of companies. One could argue the act of monitoring email means employees (or public officials) behave differently, but one could also argue that behavior is more in-line with expectations of the position in the first place. Make it a condition of employment. When I worked at NSA we had to sign off on them being able to wiretap us any time they wanted to, bypassing the need for a warrent.

MrRodgers -> RE: John Kerry Joins Hilary (2/4/2016 10:06:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey ... Maybe they should outlaw private e-mail accounts for all politicians until they leave office. You could run into violations of the 1st amendment. The government is not limiting speech, they are monitoring a person holding public office's email because of federal laws surrounding national security, Freedom of Information Act requirements, etc, roughly analogous to Sarbanes/Oxley section 802(a) which details email retention for certain types of companies. One could argue the act of monitoring email means employees (or public officials) behave differently, but one could also argue that behavior is more in-line with expectations of the position in the first place. Make it a condition of employment. When I worked at NSA we had to sign off on them being able to wiretap us any time they wanted to, bypassing the need for a warrent. I once read that the only place/job that could force one to sign away any constitutional rights...was the military. (condition of employment) Now I guess that's been revised. Why am I not surprised ? I begin to wonder just how far that will go in the future ?

joether -> RE: John Kerry Joins Hilary (2/5/2016 1:24:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey ... Maybe they should outlaw private e-mail accounts for all politicians until they leave office. You could run into violations of the 1st amendment. The government is not limiting speech, they are monitoring a person holding public office's email because of federal laws surrounding national security, Freedom of Information Act requirements, etc, roughly analogous to Sarbanes/Oxley section 802(a) which details email retention for certain types of companies. One could argue the act of monitoring email means employees (or public officials) behave differently, but one could also argue that behavior is more in-line with expectations of the position in the first place. The government, is composed of people. Those people all have their own individual viewpoints. Viewpoints that are of a political nature. You would have me believe those monitors would follow things strictly by-the-book, rather than using 'juicy-tidbits' for political advantage? Its a classical case of 'two people vying for the same promotion try to undermine the other, regardless of the fallout'. What would Republicans, monitoring, a Democrat have to gain by setting the circumstances to make the Democrat look evil and unethical? Particularly who their own party's list of candidates have no chance of winning in a general election against that Democratic? Oh wait, that little 'what if' is currently playing out in the nation. If Mrs. Clinton was not running for the White House; would the Republicans spend any time searching for something.....ANYTHING....to attack her on? Its not like the GOP nominees are a threat to Mrs. Clinton's chances of becoming a US President. The answer is 'yes' of course. They have been trying everything they could to undermine her. The email policy Mrs. Clinton was following was set down by a Republican Administration. Why are none of the Republicans currently going after Mr. Powell and Miss. Rice? If their 'cause' is 100% truthful, honest, and without political favortism, they would hold many sessions looking into both of their past records. But they do not. That's why we all know this is just a political theater. Its politically motivated. If they can not win by truth and fact, they'll try misdirection and false evidence (oh wait, they already did that and failed). Why can Republicans and their mindless minions that vote them into office just accept reality: the email scheme is never going to work.

joether -> RE: John Kerry Joins Hilary (2/5/2016 1:29:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey ... Maybe they should outlaw private e-mail accounts for all politicians until they leave office. You could run into violations of the 1st amendment. The government is not limiting speech, they are monitoring a person holding public office's email because of federal laws surrounding national security, Freedom of Information Act requirements, etc, roughly analogous to Sarbanes/Oxley section 802(a) which details email retention for certain types of companies. One could argue the act of monitoring email means employees (or public officials) behave differently, but one could also argue that behavior is more in-line with expectations of the position in the first place. Make it a condition of employment. When I worked at NSA we had to sign off on them being able to wiretap us any time they wanted to, bypassing the need for a warrent. I once read that the only place/job that could force one to sign away any constitutional rights...was the military. (condition of employment) Now I guess that's been revised. Why am I not surprised ? I begin to wonder just how far that will go in the future ? Actually a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) effectively silences people. The threat of financial damage is enough to keep most people quiet about sensitiveness things. For everything else, there is jail time.

Termyn8or -> RE: John Kerry Joins Hilary (2/5/2016 4:44:26 AM)
The ability to contract is not limited except when it specifically violates a statutory law. For example, submitting to a drug test for work is in violation of the fifth amendment but it is perfectly legal. Actually, it should not be legal except in cases where necessary, like operating heavy machinery or driving trucks or whatever. In fact even then pot should be excluded because testing positive in no way means you are under the influence, but that is a tertiary issue. These are public servants, not overlords. If I use an email from work I expect it to be viewable by the boss. They work for us. Not the other way around. as far as I am concerned they should be on camera and tape every working minute. Not getting a fucking blowjob when they are supposed to be working. Not sneaking notes between each other, they don't even like that in schools when you are kids. that means a private email server is a fucking nono. And of course the republicans know how to lose data. But make it harder. And speaking of which, this is all bullshit anyway because they could get those emails anyway. Hillary was able to delete all of her copies, but did everyone she corresponded with have their own servers and delete everything the same day ? Fuck no. the NSA could find all this shit if they wanted to, they do not want to. It went over the internet anyway, that means the NSA has copies already. Bottom line, they are all in this together. The fucking republicans just want to look busy and the democrats just want to keep the hoopla going. Even if she used the DOD overwrite they can get the data back. They could also subpoena the drive(s), look what happened to Nixon. They also have the power to force the NSA to reveal everything they know, but then they really do not want much publicity on that, EITHER SIDE. So this is all a show boys and girls. It stars both republicans and democrats. They got you distracted while now they passed CISA which is CISPA renamed. Notice that ? I bet most people didn't. What it means is that the government is allowed to share your private stuff with private companies. A government that passes shit like that is going to let that bitch off the hook ? Fuck no. Haunt her until the day she dies. We pay these motherfuckers so I want to know what they are doing all day. They are allowed to take video of you ar work, even in the bathroom. They are actually no longer allowed to require all your passwords to email and social media for employment, and the real shame of that is that they had to make a law because people are in such a slavery position being in debt that they dare not refuse. I would tell them to go fuck off. Stop the planet, I am getting off. T^T

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875