 |
Uncovering 38 minor violations by staffers out of 33,000 emails, the State Department completed its three year internal investigation of the emails saying it found "no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information".
Who here will be first in denying this fact?
Athos: I think this subject has been beat to death already, enough! Let us move on. It is all water under the bridge: HC is off-the-hook.
I bring it up because it is a favorite stand-by of Jl who brings it up constantly along with Benghazi. He can't let them go so I thought this may convince him of his error.
If it were up to me, I lost interest years ago. You're new here so you haven't been subjected to the anti-Hillary and anti-Obama business that jl obsesses on. Be glad for that.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
Seriously who cares, yesterday's news, fake news even
Fake news???????????? Hmm...Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Athos: Yes, all things have a beginning, a middle, and an end.....once you reach "THE END", it makes no sense to try and extend it...at some point you must stop it and, to me, The State Department's investigation and the results thereof is as good of a stopping point as you are ever going to get...its ridiculous to keep dragging this out and enticing people to glob onto and build conspiracy theories because the next thing you know it will be a "Who killed JFK" scenario that goes on indefinitely....and life is too short!
Since you mention me, I will present this for your consideration lest you try and elevate Saint Hillary to too high a level.
"Since Hillary Clinton's email misconduct was, in fact, a bona fide scandal that warranted intense scrutiny. Some points: (1) Of course her misconduct was deliberate. She went through an enormous amount of trouble to set up a bootleg, woefully under-secured email server, on which she conducted official business -- including quite a lot of classified business. National security officials have stated on the record that it's highly likely that this server and its contents were penetrated by hostile foreign actors. Setting up the server required intent and affirmative steps, as did its continued use. The whole point was to bypass the official system, allowing her total control over her virtual paper train, much of which she permanently and unilaterally deleted, with no oversight.
(2) Of course her ceaseless lying about the whole matter contributes to her culpability. Mrs. Clinton lied repeatedly about her emails, including lies about why she set up the private server in the first place, lies regarding classification markings, and lies about whether any of her 32,000 permanently-deleted emails were work-related (we know for a fact that a significant number were, and some were even classified). Excluding the deleted content, more than 2,000 emails on Clinton's server contained classified material, including dozens at the "secret" or "top secret" levels (and even above top secret). All of this points to systemic and deliberate action, intentionally obscured by a blizzard of untruths. Here's left-leaning Politifact awarding Clinton a "false" rating on an assertion she made publicly, over and over again:
Clinton made the case for a year and as recently as Saturday, hours after being interviewed by investigators. "Let me repeat what I have repeated for many months now," Clinton said July 2, 2016. "I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified."...Now we know it’s just plain wrong...In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status. Even so, Clinton and her team still should have known the information was not appropriate for an unclassified system, Comey said.
(3) Of course the State Department review is not an exoneration of Hillary Clinton. Anyone in the media who is pretending otherwise is being dishonest, and actively working to ensure that future Democratic scandals are soft-pedaled in such a manner as to not pose an electoral threat to journalists' preferred candidates. Various news accounts of the new State Department review acknowledge, but quickly glide by, the fact that excluded from the investigation, out of necessity, were any of the tens of thousands of emails that Hillary and her inner circle permanently deleted. "Not included in the review were emails deleted by Mrs. Clinton," the Times notes. Beyond a small handful of messages recovered through other means, we are in the dark about the contents of the vast majority of the emails she ordered to be destroyed, although we do know she brazenly lied about that subject. May I remind you that this destruction of evidence occurred shortly after the existence of the secret server was first reported by the New York Times, triggering an "oh sh*t" moment, and a frantic deletion process."
The entire article can be found here. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...ails-n2555164/
The actual article has many links you can take which, of course, don't work here.
And unsurprisingly, you left out a few "details".
"State Department investigators probing Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state discovered nearly 600 security incidents that violated agency policy, according to a report the Daily Caller News Foundation obtained.
The investigation, conducted by the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, found 38 individuals were culpable for 91 security violations. Another 497 violations were found, but no individuals were found culpable in those incidents."
https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/18/h...rtment-emails/
As can be seen above, that is a incorrect statement, so your "facts" seem to be in question. It was 38 people, not 38 incidents. There were nearly 600 incidents.Quote:
Uncovering 38 minor violations by staffers out of 33,000 emails,
Vac, she might decide to jump into this group of otherwise unremarkable candidates for the democratic nomination. If she does, then it all becomes relevant again.
"Although the report identified violations, it said investigators had found “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.”
However, it also made clear that Clinton’s use of the private email had increased the vulnerability of classified information.
The investigation covered 33,000 emails that Clinton turned over for review after her use of the private email account became public.
The department said it found a total of 588 violations involving information then or now deemed to be classified but could not assign fault in 497 cases."
https://www.libertyheadlines.com/sta...ails-culpable/
jlisenbe: Don't mistake me for someone who likes HC, I don't and never did, but I think those on the right should focus more energy on more important matters, particularly those of the current Trump Administration: I am not Trump's fanboy, either, as I know you are not, but the other side certainly doesn't have or has not presented what I consider a viable, appealing candidate, either, out of the 20 that are running. I don't know what to make of Gabbard, other than I like her feisty attitude and certainly love her beauty! I agree that if HC does jump into the POTUS election field, everything in her past is, again, fair game. However, as of this moment, I don't see anything about HC that makes her relevant enough to waste any time talking about her or anything she may or may not have done.
Slightly Off-Subject here: I would love to see a Third Party Candidate, preferably a Libertarian, if Gabbard would consider that and prove she was "all-in" in that regard. However, I don't think Tulsi should get into the protracted discussions with HC: Tulsi would be better off not acknowledging HC or HC's attempts to portray her as someone groomed by the Russians, although I do know what is meant by the "grooming" technique: I was once "groomed" by a far Right organization to join their ranks and didn't know it until the day they thought I was going to join their ranks...couldn't get out of there fast enough.....so, I know these things can happen.
I think that's a fair enough position. The only reason I posted what I did was to illustrate that the so called "facts" that Athos put up were not even close to being true. He said 38 incidents, but it was 38 individuals who could be identified and many more who could not, and a grand total of nearly 600 incidents.Quote:
jlisenbe: Don't mistake me for someone who likes HC, I don't and never did, but I think those on the right should focus more energy on more important matters, particularly those of the current Trump Administration: I am not Trump's fanboy, either, as I know you are not, but the other side certainly doesn't have or has not presented what I consider a viable, appealing candidate, either, out of the 20 that are running. I don't know what to make of Gabbard, other than I like her feisty attitude and certainly love her beauty! I agree that if HC does jump into the POTUS election field, everything in her past is, again, fair game. However, as of this moment, I don't see anything about HC that makes her relevant enough to waste any time talking about her or anything she may or may not have done.
And that is true as well. I think TG went after HC for two reasons. HC's allegations, at the very least, sounded crazy, and it was also a chance to get some pub by showing she has a backbone. I don't think she'll go for a third party run.Quote:
Slightly Off-Subject here: I would love to see a Third Party Candidate, preferably a Libertarian, if Gabbard would consider that and prove she was "all-in" in that regard. However, I don't think Tulsi should get into the protracted discussions with HC: Tulsi would be better off not acknowledging HC or HC's attempts to portray her as someone groomed by the Russians, although I do know what is meant by the "grooming" technique: I was once "groomed" by a far Right organization to join their ranks and didn't know it until the day they thought I was going to join their ranks...couldn't get out of there fast enough.....so, I know these things can happen.
Like you, I don't know exactly what HC meant by "assets" and "grooming". I do know that no one but HC and the people around her can answer those questions.
jlisenbe: I like people with backbone and I think Gabbard has that quality in spades....You can bet that whatever HC throws Tulsi's way, the lady TG will be ready, willing, and able to fire back on it with great gusto.
I really don't know what it will take to raise a viable Third Party Candidate....and I don't know if I will ever see one in my lifetime.....But, I know this: We shouldn't celebrate or brag about how free our POTUS election process is when it is, effectively, a MONOPOLY split between two political parties....two is better than one, I will grant you that but three is better than two in this case....can you imagine if there were only two choices in the color of paint, flavor of ice cream, anything? The American public has become numb to this and just goes with the flow....and that's the problem: There is NO FLOW! The process is completely STAGNANT!
You're right - it was 38 violators, not 38 violations. My error. The conclusion stands - NO PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE OF SYSTEMIC DELIBERATE MISHANDLING OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The point is - you are still obsessed. The two lengthy c/ps you posted are from two far right-wing extremist websites. Like you, they feed on all things anti-Hillary without a bit of solid evidence. They are each known to mix false information in with half-truths. I'm glad you revealed your bias by quoting them - gives us all a better picture of where you come from, which is the loony bin right-wing.
V7 gave a perfect example of "grooming". Yet you claim ignorance on his part. Again, you make statements belied in the very post the statement is made.Quote:
Like you (Vacuum 7), I don't know exactly what HC meant by "assets" and "grooming".
No, it's only you that doesn't get it. The rest of the world is moving on, like V7 suggested. I can do that. Can you?Quote:
I do know that no one but HC and the people around her can answer those questions.
Vac, how about five political parties. Would you favor that?
Uhm...you're the one who brought it up, not me.Quote:
The point is - you are still obsessed.
I did not say Vac was ignorant of HC's meaning. I said we were ALL ignorant. Neither you, nor I, nor any of us here know exactly what meaning of "grooming" she used. She hasn't said, so that's it. As to the meaning, I was knowingly groomed to become a school principal when I was a teacher and an assistant principal. I knew that was taking place. So there is my experience, very different from Vac's, and yet it gives us no more revelation of HC's use of the word than his example did. You completely miss the point.Quote:
V7 gave a perfect example of "grooming". Yet you claim ignorance on his part. Again, you make statements belied in the very post the statement is made.
If you don't want to talk about it, then don't bring it up. If you bring it up, as you did, then don't whine about it when people comment on it.Quote:
No, it's only you that doesn't get it. The rest of the world is moving on, like V7 suggested. I can do that. Can you?
Now will I move on from Hillary's corruption? We'll see, but it won't be determined by you. The reason we are talking about HC the past few days is because of her comments about Stein and Gabbard. Those are all recent. But I'll make a deal with you. If you won't comment when Trump says something dumb, then I won't comment when HC says something dumb. I doubt you will take that deal, and I can't really say I blame you.
jlisenbe: I know what you are getting at: When is enough really enough? I'm not that smart, I only know that having just two is something of a farce....but, then again, I sure as heck don't want the U.S. to become ITALY where they have an absurd amount of political parties.
Somehow, the POTUS election process, and to a great extend both the Congressional and Senatorial election processes, have been highjacked by TWO parties. How you break that cycle is beyond me....having a candidate is probably a good start, though!
I think we have, in our history, almost always been a two party system, so that has not been a recent development. Maybe not, but I don't think so.Quote:
jlisenbe: I know what you are getting at: When is enough really enough? I'm not that smart, I only know that having just two is something of a farce....but, then again, I sure as heck don't want the U.S. to become ITALY where they have an absurd amount of political parties.
Somehow, the POTUS election process, and to a great extend both the Congressional and Senatorial election processes, have been highjacked by TWO parties. How you break that cycle is beyond me....having a candidate is probably a good start, though!
jlisenbe: You are correct about the U.S. always traditionally being a two party system.....I will contend to you, however, that the same Two Party System has never been so dysfunctional than it is right now....and why is that the case? It could be that now the country is very divided and the division is so deep that the two parties are solving problems, much at all, when it comes to problems that take the two sides having to work together on to accomplish. Having a third party would eliminate that problem because coalitions could be formed to keep things moving forward.
How can anything good come out of a time in our nation where the topic of the day is what is "What's next to investigate?" Everyone is investigating like hell but there isn't much being accomplished.....and, I think people are taking notice of how lethargic the form and function of Federal Government has become.
You should speak for yourself as to what HC meant by assets and grooming because the reference is to the games that Vlad plays in the cyber world of information and disinformation and she was clear and specific that a third party candidate would syphon dem votes.. That was her very clear warning whether you understand that or not. Given the data already collected and reported from Mueller, Congress, and the intel community we know as fact that Vlad has improved on his previous techniques and is actively engaging in them again. Need more proof? Facebook, just one platform to launch such an attack, has been and still are removing Russian and Iranian accounts.Quote:
I did not say Vac was ignorant of HC's meaning. I said we were ALL ignorant. Neither you, nor I, nor any of us here know exactly what meaning of "grooming" she used. She hasn't said, so that's it. As to the meaning, I was knowingly groomed to become a school principal when I was a teacher and an assistant principal. I knew that was taking place. So there is my experience, and it gives us no more revelation of HC's use of the word than Vac's example did. You completely miss the point.
From the last link,
Peter Singer, a New America strategist whose latest book is LikeWar, told Defense One in a message, “The latest news shows yet again the central lesson that Russia and every other actor took from 2016, that these ‘LikeWar’ campaigns not only work, but that you will pay little to no cost for running them. Until both sides of that dynamic are shifted, limiting their effectiveness through digital literacy and company action, as well as creating consequences for attacking our democracy (which the White House has been, well, on the wrong side), we’ll see it continue. Indeed, we’ve already seen copycats by other groups and governments ranging from China to Turkey to targeting at state and local level.”Indeed, Facebook’s Monday announcement also disclosed that the company had shuttered Iranian accounts as well for engaging in similar behavior.The trend will continue, said Alina Polyakova, the director of the Project on Global Democracy and Emerging Technology at the Brookings Institution. “The Russian toolkit is increasingly being copied by other state actors,” she told Defense One in a phone interview, describing the imitation of Russian techniques as a pattern she had seen build over the last few months.Learn to read and understand!
PS
Anyone find it strange the Dufus administration absolves HC? Either they got paid, or it was a nothing burger the whole time.
I do not know, nor do you, which meaning of "grooming" and "assets" HC used. We don't live in her head, so we don't know. It's just that simple. As to the rest of your statement, there is a lot of truth there.Quote:
You should speak for yourself as to what HC meant by assets and grooming because the reference is to the games that Vlad plays in the cyber world of information and disinformation and she was clear and specific that a third party candidate would syphon dem votes.. That was her very clear warning whether you understand that or not. Given the data already collected and reported from Mueller, Congress, and the intel community we know as fact that Vlad has improved on his previous techniques and is actively engaging in them again. Need more proof? Facebook, just one platform to launch such an attack, has been and still are removing Russian and Iranian accounts.
You should try it yourself. I've never contended that what is described above is not going on. The question, in this thread, has been HC's use of "grooming" and "assets", and whether or not there was collaboration with Trump in the Russian efforts.Quote:
Indeed, we’ve already seen copycats by other groups and governments ranging from China to Turkey to targeting at state and local level.”Indeed, Facebook’s Monday announcement also disclosed that the company had shuttered Iranian accounts as well for engaging in similar behavior.The trend will continue, said Alina Polyakova, the director of the Project on Global Democracy and Emerging Technology at the Brookings Institution. “The Russian toolkit is increasingly being copied by other state actors,” she told Defense One in a phone interview, describing the imitation of Russian techniques as a pattern she had seen build over the last few months.
Learn to read and understand!
Vac, I completely agree with the first part of your paragraph. I'm not convinced that a third party will help at all. How do you think it would help?Quote:
I will contend to you, however, that the same Two Party System has never been so dysfunctional than it is right now....and why is that the case? It could be that now the country is very divided and the division is so deep that the two parties are solving problems, much at all, when it comes to problems that take the two sides having to work together on to accomplish. Having a third party would eliminate that problem because coalitions could be formed to keep things moving forward.
Didn't I just suggest you speak for yourself? Just because you don't know or understand doesn't mean others don't. It's really a simple formula, Putin + assets + grooming = political calculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Or the dufus was groomed as an asset long ago.Quote:
You should try it yourself. I've never contended that what is described above is not going on. The question, in this thread, has been HC's use of "grooming" and "assets", and whether or not there was collaboration with Trump in the Russian efforts.
There are many examples of multi party governing and Israel, and England come to mind and the head of state has to form a coalition for governing. Even our main parties have morphed through the years swallowing minor parties which do win state and local elections to this day. Even so called independents go with one party or the other as a practice. Rand Paul, and Bernie Sanders come to mind as well as Angus King.Quote:
Vac, I completely agree with the first part of your paragraph. I'm not convinced that a third party will help at all. How do you think it would help?
Naw I don't see any third party candidates breaking through since Ross Pierrot ruined it for Pappy Bush, and it could be said that Jill Stein hurt HC.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:38 AM. |