Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

all hail HRCFollow

#52 Jul 07 2016 at 8:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Talk about trying way too hard. I particularly loved when Obama called Clinton the Energizer Bunny (I'm sure that no feminist groups will have issue with the word "bunny" used in this context though, so it's all ok), and when Clinton said that Obama's greatest accomplishment was more or less successfully breeding (yeah, I get what she was saying, but boy could you interpret it another way if you wanted).

You're sounding desperate.


And yet, those are the kinds of statements which if made by two Republicans would be front and center on every liberal website and media source as evidence of discord between them.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#53 Jul 07 2016 at 8:27 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,917 posts
Candies and nuts?
#54 Jul 07 2016 at 8:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Allegory wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
My mom still can't figure out the difference between Reply and Forward.

There isn't one, at least functionally.


There is. If you reply, and add a recipient, there won't be any attachments from the previous email. If you forward to someone, attachments will be included. Usually forward to someone who wasn't on the original email. This is a thing that my boss, who is older, can't wrap his head around, so I get added to a lot of replies, with things like "can you fill out the attached document from so-and-so" and I have to reply asking him to forward the document to me.


Hah. Yeah, I run into this all the time. One of our vendor AEs will get an email from their internal team with a set of licenses for their software that we need, and he'll reply to it, include me (the guy who has to actually do something with the licenses), and ask me to activate/install them. I'm constantly having to ask him to send the darn attachment. Of course, then he often manages to ***** it up (cause again, "forward" is too complicated), and tries to manually attach the files to a new email. He inevitably sends me 2 or more copies of one license file, and no copies of some others. And when our counts don't add up, I'm left with zero electronic paper trail to figure out why we're short.

So yes. Knowing the correct tool to use and how to use it correctly actually is important.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Jul 07 2016 at 9:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And yet, those are the kinds of statements which if made by two Republicans would be front and center on every liberal website and media source as evidence of discord between them.

It's good that, in all this, you can still find ways to whine and make the GOP a martyr Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#56 Jul 08 2016 at 1:52 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,445 posts
Call me crazy, but I don't find myself actually caring about any of the things Hilary is being accused of. Next I'll be hearing about how Hilary forgot to wash her hands after leaving the girls room and how horrible it is, over and over, all day long for months until the next of many desperate try hard scandals comes along. It's kind of sad how this one stuck somehow and all kinds of people who aren't conspiracy theory fuckwits are talking about it like it matters at all.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#57 Jul 08 2016 at 8:49 AM Rating: Good
******
49,893 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Anyone else would have been nailed to the wall.
But no one really has.
angrymnk wrote:
I am not even sure why this cannot happen.
Because not voting has zero effect on the process.

Also voting third party. Zero effect. Just the sheer number of people that are going to always vote along party lines makes it pointless.

Edited, Jul 8th 2016 11:35am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#58 Jul 08 2016 at 9:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, for all the "Anyone else would have been...", that's just not the history. Even if you were to accept the one or two reaches that come up and ignore the other circumstances around those cases, that's still a bunch of investigated cases and one or two times someone was actually prosecuted. "Anyone else would have been" is just plain wrong based on previous history.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#59 Jul 08 2016 at 10:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,431 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, for all the "Anyone else would have been...", that's just not the history. Even if you were to accept the one or two reaches that come up and ignore the other circumstances around those cases, that's still a bunch of investigated cases and one or two times someone was actually prosecuted. "Anyone else would have been" is just plain wrong based on previous history.
This probably bears repeating. If there's any criticism to spin it's that the problem is widespread and isn't being treated seriously. How seriously we should take it, of course, being a matter of debate. Updating laws for the 21st century is probably a good start, record keeping requirements and whatnot probably need to be looked at again, and security is always a concern regardless. If if the majority of government employees likely do use non-government e-mails for government communication, at least on occasion, that's a problem that should be addressed.

Still an occasional e-mail is a far cry from setting up your own server without permission and handling classified information over it, of course. Some dumb decisions speak for themselves.Smiley: rolleyes

I guess we see what the State Dept has to say about it now that they're relaunching their own investigation. Not that it'll mean much if she does wind up President. Can't exactly ban the leader of the country from handling classified information.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#60 Jul 08 2016 at 6:12 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,264 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Anyone else would have been nailed to the wall.
But no one really has.
angrymnk wrote:
I am not even sure why this cannot happen.
Because not voting has zero effect on the process.

Also voting third party. Zero effect. Just the sheer number of people that are going to always vote along party lines makes it pointless.

Edited, Jul 8th 2016 11:35am by lolgaxe


Huh? Cursory google search pulls names like: Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, John Gerstein, Bryan Nishimura, Kristian Saucier and Shamai Leibowitz. I will give you that they are not completely analogous to what HRC did. But you will note how some of them did not have the intent, apparently like Clinton. Not like her, naturally. She is a in league of her own.

As for the third party vote, I think I can finally use this piece.

Edited, Jul 8th 2016 8:25pm by angrymnk

Edited, Jul 8th 2016 8:28pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#61 Jul 08 2016 at 6:39 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Didn't read the first page, but I would like to clarify that there is a huge difference between an email being marked classified as opposed to a classified marking on a sentence within the document. Not making any excuses, but I hear a lot of people claiming that they are the same.
#62 Jul 08 2016 at 7:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
angrymnk wrote:
Huh? Cursory google search pulls names like: Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, John Gerstein, Bryan Nishimura, Kristian Saucier and Shamai Leibowitz. I will give you that they are not completely analogous to what HRC did.

Which is why they were handled differently. Kim intentionally disclosed info to a reporter, Nishimura tried to destroy classified materials, Saucier took photos of a submarine's (classified) nuclear reactor room and Leibowitz intentionally shared classified information with a friend explicitly to have it disseminated.

But, hey... kinda-sorta is close enough. Why sweat details?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#63 Jul 08 2016 at 7:23 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,264 posts
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Huh? Cursory google search pulls names like: Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, John Gerstein, Bryan Nishimura, Kristian Saucier and Shamai Leibowitz. I will give you that they are not completely analogous to what HRC did.

Which is why they were handled differently. Kim intentionally disclosed info to a reporter, Nishimura tried to destroy classified materials, Saucier took photos of a submarine's (classified) nuclear reactor room and Leibowitz intentionally shared classified information with a friend explicitly to have it disseminated.

But, hey... kinda-sorta is close enough. Why sweat details?


Why indeed? It is not like HRC unintentionally hired a consulting firm, unintentionally bought a server, had IT people manage it, unintentionally used that private server for work emails, unintentionally had her lawyers only give investigators those emails she deemed worthwhile. And then she did not even get a slap on a ******* wrist. Not even a paltry fine, which she could pay out of her pocket.

Now let us oppose that with Saucier, who did not actually intend to disseminate pictures he took. Where is that mens rea now?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#64 Jul 08 2016 at 8:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Navy Times wrote:
Saucier told the FBI in an interview that the phone was his but that he didn't take the pictures, according to the criminal complaint. The FBI alleges that after the interview, Saucier went home and smashed his laptop, a camera and an SD card.

FBI caught him lying in the interview and then trying to destroy evidence. In contrast, Comey stated that Clinton did not lie to him during the FBI interview and that the deleted emails containing information of note were apparently deleted over time as part of routine server maintenance and not intentionally.

It's entirely likely that, had Saucier been honest and handed over the evidence, he would have been reprimanded but not indicted and sent to prison.

Edited, Jul 8th 2016 9:22pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#65 Jul 08 2016 at 8:54 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,264 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Navy Times wrote:
Saucier told the FBI in an interview that the phone was his but that he didn't take the pictures, according to the criminal complaint. The FBI alleges that after the interview, Saucier went home and smashed his laptop, a camera and an SD card.

FBI caught him lying in the interview and then trying to destroy evidence. In contrast, Comey stated that Clinton did not lie to him during the FBI interview and that the deleted emails containing information of note were apparently deleted over time as part of routine server maintenance and not intentionally.

It's entirely likely that, had Saucier been honest and handed over the evidence, he would have been reprimanded but not indicted and sent to prison.

Edited, Jul 8th 2016 9:22pm by Jophiel


Funny, Clinton lied to the US on her very own HillaryClinton.com ( email facts ) page. It was for everyone to see. Don't know if it is still is. But because she technically did not lie to Comey directly she gets off with... nothing at all? Gotta love technicalities. So talk to me more about lying and destroying evidence.

Also, I do apologize in advance for doing this, but this is not a normal situation:

CLINTON: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.” (Hillary Clinton, press conference, 3/10/15)

COMEY: “110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning [government] agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. … Separate from those, about 2,000 additional emails were up-classified to make them confidential. Those emails had not been classified at the time that they were sent or received… [Some] chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending emails about [top-secret-level] matters and receiving emails from others about the same matters.”

CLINTON: “I take classified information seriously.” (Hillary Clinton, CNN interview, 2/1/2016)

COMEY: “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

CLINTON: “Nothing I sent was marked classified or that I received was marked classified.” (Hillary Clinton, Democratic Presidential Town Hall on Fox News, 3/7/2016)

COMEY: “It’s also important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the emails here containing classified information bore markings that indicated the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

CLINTON: “I have directed that all my emails on Clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done” (Hillary Clinton, sworn statement filed in U.S. District Court, 08/10/15)

COMNEY: “The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related emails that were not among the group of 30,000 emails returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.”

CLINTON: Asked if she “wiped” the server, “What, like with a cloth or something? Well, no. I don’t know how it works digitally at all.” (Hillary Clinton, press conference, 8/18/2015)

COMEY: Clinton’s lawyers “cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”

CLINTON: “The Secretary’s office was located in a secure area. Classified information was viewed in hard copy by Clinton while in the office. While on travel, the State Department had rigorous protocols for her and traveling staff to receive and transmit information of all types,” (HillaryClinton.com, “The Facts About Hillary Clinton’s Emails”)

COMEY: “She also used her personal email extensively while outside of the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”




Edited, Jul 8th 2016 10:55pm by angrymnk

Edited, Jul 8th 2016 10:59pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#66 Jul 08 2016 at 10:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
angrymnk wrote:
But because she technically did not lie to Comey directly she gets off with... nothing at all?

Rule of law is a bitch, huh? It's almost as though you need to lie to the FBI in order for the FBI to charge you with lying to the FBI and collected quotes pulled from the internet don't count.

Edited, Jul 8th 2016 11:34pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#67 Jul 09 2016 at 7:01 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
But because she technically did not lie to Comey directly she gets off with... nothing at all?

Rule of law is a bitch, huh? It's almost as though you need to lie to the FBI in order for the FBI to charge you with lying to the FBI and collected quotes pulled from the internet don't count.

Edited, Jul 8th 2016 11:34pm by Jophiel



Funny how many of these same people upset about this outcome took the DoJ outcome for Mike Brown/Ferguson as absolute truth when there was supporting evidence of the city abusing the populace and facts that officer Wilson was once removed for behavioral issues.
#68 Jul 09 2016 at 10:14 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,264 posts
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
But because she technically did not lie to Comey directly she gets off with... nothing at all?

Rule of law is a bitch, huh? It's almost as though you need to lie to the FBI in order for the FBI to charge you with lying to the FBI and collected quotes pulled from the internet don't count.

Edited, Jul 8th 2016 11:34pm by Jophiel


Heh, good one. It is only a shame that some of those quotes happen to have been parts of various interviews and whatnot. Public record. Internet just happens to be a storage here. Still, as arguments go, it was a good one.

You see Joph.. I believe in balance, above all else. I also happen to think things have gotten way out of balance over the past 20 or so years. And it is not about Clinton, not really. It is exactly about that lack of balance. And with all his recent decisions, Comey made it clear that he wants to move that balance even further in the same direction. And again, HRC decision was just another bad decision in a string of really bad decisions. He, and people like him, are pushing US towards a country that is effectively not the US I would want to live in.

Which is a ******* shame, because I like it here. About the only thing I seem to be missing now is a dog to make it dunno..complete.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#69 Jul 09 2016 at 11:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
angrymnk wrote:
Heh, good one. It is only a shame that some of those quotes happen to have been parts of various interviews and whatnot.

But not with the FBI. You realize that it's not the FBI's job to see if you told fibs on the internet, right? You're demanding that Clinton's case be treated like other cases that differed from her's in significant ways and you don't seem to understand that those differences... well, make all the difference.
Quote:
You see Joph.. I believe in balance, above all else.

That's swell. You don't seem to believe in the FBI working within the law even as you pitch a fit about Clinton not working within the law.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#70 Jul 09 2016 at 11:18 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,264 posts
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Heh, good one. It is only a shame that some of those quotes happen to have been parts of various interviews and whatnot.

But not with the FBI. You realize that it's not the FBI's job to see if you told fibs on the internet, right? You're demanding that Clinton's case be treated like other cases that differed from her's in significant ways and you don't seem to understand that those differences... well, make all the difference.
Quote:
You see Joph.. I believe in balance, above all else.

That's swell. You don't seem to believe in the FBI working within the law even as you pitch a fit about Clinton not working within the law.


Interesting. It is, however, FBI's job to collect relevant evidence. Based on what you know thus far, was she working within the law? Consider it a thought experiment. Try not to base it on FBI saying yes.

Edited, Jul 9th 2016 1:19pm by angrymnk

Edited, Jul 9th 2016 1:20pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#71 Jul 09 2016 at 11:42 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Agnrymnk wrote:
Interesting. It is, however, FBI's job to collect relevant evidence.
Exactly. Don't confuse the intent of the investigation.
#72 Jul 09 2016 at 11:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
angrymnk wrote:
Try not to base it on FBI saying yes.

Why not? We were discussing whether or not the FBI treated the case fairly compared to other cases, right? Re-reading this page, that WAS the topic. Are you ready to concede that the FBI treated the case properly before we move on?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#73 Jul 09 2016 at 12:06 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,264 posts
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Try not to base it on FBI saying yes.

Why not? We were discussing whether or not the FBI treated the case fairly compared to other cases, right? Re-reading this page, that WAS the topic. Are you ready to concede that the FBI treated the case properly before we move on?


Depends. Are you ready to say that Clinton got a way with metaphorical murder?

Edited, Jul 9th 2016 2:07pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#74 Jul 09 2016 at 12:09 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,264 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Agnrymnk wrote:
Interesting. It is, however, FBI's job to collect relevant evidence.
Exactly. Don't confuse the intent of the investigation.


That intent being to let her go? I am confused.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#75 Jul 09 2016 at 12:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
angrymnk wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Try not to base it on FBI saying yes.
Why not? We were discussing whether or not the FBI treated the case fairly compared to other cases, right? Re-reading this page, that WAS the topic. Are you ready to concede that the FBI treated the case properly before we move on?
Depends.

I'll take that as you running out of points. No problem, better luck next time. We have a lovely home edition of the game waiting for you as you leave. Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Jul 09 2016 at 12:26 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,264 posts
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Try not to base it on FBI saying yes.
Why not? We were discussing whether or not the FBI treated the case fairly compared to other cases, right? Re-reading this page, that WAS the topic. Are you ready to concede that the FBI treated the case properly before we move on?
Depends.

I'll take that as you running out of points. No problem, better luck next time. We have a lovely home edition of the game waiting for you as you leave. Smiley: thumbsup


Take it as you will. You did not answer either of the previous questions. As far as I can tell we did not finish.

That said, you made me question my view of things. I can only say good job. I doubt you believe any of it, but any sophist would be proud.

____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 43 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (43)