Support NeoGAF

[DAVIDHUXLEY]

Mine too. People are completely losing their minds, as if the greatest scandal in American History just occurred.

I think they realized that this was there last chance to stop her from being president (because they can't win with old fashioned votes).

I'm not sure if it's funny or scary.

No it is just sad.
It seems some people were counting on an indictment.

 

[Psychoward]

And yet these secrets and confidential information weren't marked classified

Did you even watch the statement?

 

[Rabbi_Vole]

So again, what consequences do you guys think Clinton should face? A fine? Future security clearance privileges revoked?

Thoughts?

 

[Rabbi_Vole]

Did you even watch the statement?

The lie and suspicion of misinformation is too deeply ingrained for many to comprehend what's actually happened

 

[Neoweee]

So again, what consequences do you guys think Clinton should face? A fine? Future security clearance privileges revoked?

Thoughts?

I'm hoping for the same shit sandwich that was handed to the hundred-ish Bush administration staffers that did the same thing when they used RNC servers and lost literally millions of emails that should have been preserved. Bring that hammer down!

 

[jon bones]

So again, what consequences do you guys think Clinton should face? A fine? Future security clearance privileges revoked?

Thoughts?

none

also lol @ revoking the President's security clearance

 

[Rabbi_Vole]

I'm hoping for the same shit sandwich that was handed to the hundred-ish Bush administration staffers that did the same thing when they used RNC servers and lost literally millions of emails that should have been preserved. Bring that hammer down!

I wasn't aware they mishandled top secret national security information. If so, yes, bring down the hammer.

 

[dave is ok]

So again, what consequences do you guys think Clinton should face? A fine? Future security clearance privileges revoked?

Thoughts?

The catherine wheel

Spoiler

a tongue lashing by the director of the FBI is about right and it's all she'll face

 

[GiantEnemyGoomba]

So again, what consequences do you guys think Clinton should face? A fine? Future security clearance privileges revoked?

Thoughts?

An unprecedented, scathing conference from the FBI director, who very obviously wanted to indict her.

Also at least four more years of investigations into this by Congress.

Not sure what could be expected, but hopefully legislation gets passed that reforms the obviously lacking regulation of sensitive information being handled electronically.

 

[Tobor]

So again, what consequences do you guys think Clinton should face? A fine? Future security clearance privileges revoked?

Thoughts?

I'll defer to the FBI and justice departments judgement, as I do in all relevant matters.

 

[TomServo]

She is not getting indicted. Of course it's a big deal. More nonsense poured on her in which everyone who actually knew what they were talking about said there was no case, and lo and behold there was no case. She made a mistake, she'll fix it in the future, and nothing needs to be said further because no one got hurt in the matter.

The thing is, to a sane person, the mistake she made was the actual mishandling of the information, but to Hillary the mistakes are in getting caught in multiple lies and not not managing the news cycle better.

I don't expect anything about her behavior to change, except when it comes to how she'll lie about the next turd she steps in. Another turd there will be, either of her own making or lobbed at her by Republican opposition.

I can't vote for her. At this point I'd honestly have to have a vision from God to change that.

I'm also trying to find a way to punish the Democrat party without voting for Trump. Right now I've settled on withholding all support for any Democrats down ticket. As a Libertarian in a left-leaning discussion that probably sounds laughable, but my voting record from US senators on down to state offices skews hard to the (D) side. I honestly don't remember the last time I voted for any other party for congressman.

Feels OK to me, especially in a swing state with a US senate seat up for re-election.

 

[Pillville]

I will never understand why so many GAF users have Facebook timelines full of idiots.

Do you just accept every friend request or something? Even racist uncles and shit? Why?

I've had an account from back when it was only accessible with a edu address, but I have never seen any of the shit that I see referenced or posted here from any of my friends.

Maybe it's because I'm older (41), but I only use Facebook to keep in touch with my family, high school classmates, etc... Many of them happen to be lunatics.

 

[exmachina64]

Has it crossed anyone's mind that the republicans won't confirm anyone to the Supreme Court under Hillary Clinton? shes going to get even less done under her administration than Obama.

Well, since the House doesn't confirm nominees and the Senate will be under our control after the elections...

 

[Deleted member 1159]

I will never understand why so many GAF users have Facebook timelines full of idiots.

Do you just accept every friend request or something? Even racist uncles and shit? Why?

I've had an account from back when it was only accessible with a edu address, but I have never seen any of the shit that I see referenced or posted here from any of my friends.

Most of the friends and family I was raised around are conservative Mormons. My mom thought it was the end of times during the Lewinsky scandal. My aunt is essentially a Glenn Beck feed. I love these people, even if they're partially insane.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

The thing is, to a sane person, the mistake she made was the actual mishandling of the information, but to Hillary the mistakes are in getting caught in multiple lies and not not managing the news cycle better.

I love when people construct their own narrative for the sake of justifying their anger.

Can someone explain to me what possible reason would she have to knowingly send classified emails using the wrong channels? Especially since they've been mostly recovered and nothing in them was particularly incriminating or warranting "hiding"?

 

[Nairume]

I will never understand why so many GAF users have Facebook timelines full of idiots.

Do you just accept every friend request or something? Even racist uncles and shit? Why?

I've had an account from back when it was only accessible with a edu address, but I have never seen any of the shit that I see referenced or posted here from any of my friends.

Really the easiest thing to do is to just start muting people who get bad about sharing the really idiotic stuff. Or at least make it to where stuff they share from certain sources won't show up (so you don't have to actually mute specific people).

I've been doing that for years now and my feed isn't clogged up with dumb junk even with a good chunk of my friend list being friends and family in the deep south who are exactly the kind of people you'd expect to be unironically sharing images about Obama being a stealth muslim atheist socialist homosexual aclu lawyer and abortion doctor.

 

[Drek]

I do think every voter needs to look at the history of the way the us has handled government employees mishandling classified information and then ask if someone who did that should be given access to even more secure and sensitive information.

Of course this is balanced with "what's the alternative to allowing someone with this negative mark on their record to become president" and that's where the decision is made. It's a shame that it's become a best of two worst options for most people. There's a lot more issues and opinions involved of course.

First paragraph: yes, every person needs to make their own assessment. But we shouldn't make those assessments from the mindset of a purist. Hillary Clinton is not an IT admin. She handled her email in a functionally similar method as her predecessor, Colin Powell, the only prior Sec. of State to have any real use of email. She happened to do so at a time when email went from a fringe form of communication in political circles to the most popular method of correspondence in the entire world. This was also at a time of rapidly increasing cyber security risks and a rapidly evolving standard of "secure".

The FBI has never said that she herself sent classified information, just that she was included in seven chains that somewhere within did include classified information.

Would you want to hire Clinton to be the IT director of a company? Obviously not, but then that was clear well before this. We're seeing this all directed at Clinton when in reality the federal government as an institution has been slow to react to the rapid advancement of communication technology over the last few decades in general. It was a case of poor judgement to not just use two distinct accounts with the second being the .gov account but this should have never even been her decision to make.

As for the second paragraph: equating Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump on the "two worst options" spectrum is, frankly, moronic. She is a very intelligent, very capable, and very proven public official. Donald Trump is a con man either playing to racism and xenophobia or himself an ardent believer in those most base elements of his populist movement. Clinton might, depending on what you believe, have issues with transparency and open governance. Donald Trump is literally a neo-fascist.

Hillary Clinton would likely be an effective and generally progressive POTUS, if not the most transparent or transformative. She would likely serve the post better than George W. Bush ever did, Al Gore would have, comparable to her husband's tenure, better than Dole ever would have, and better than any of G.H.W. Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, or Nixon. So "worst choice" but still likely to be better at the post than everyone but a handful of all the options we've had to even choose from over the past ~25 years and better than everyone who actually held the office for about 25 years before that.

Truly a worst case scenario though, right?

 

[BudokaiMR2]

Facebook is pretty much for families now. It's all old people. And many of us have pressure to be friends with the whole family.

Few use Facebook to keep up with their peers like in the early days, that's what Instagram or Snapchat are for.

I'm not that old. ( ._.)
I do mostly use LINE to communicate and set up stuff with friends though.
LINE Stamps ftw

Maybe it's because I'm older (41), but I only use Facebook to keep in touch with my family, high school classmates, etc... Many of them happen to be lunatics.

Possibly. Since I started using it just as it opened up for most universities in North America, I basically kept it limited to friends and other people who work in my industry. Not very many lunatics in that circle, I am proud to say. And basically no family because yeah I hate most of those ignorant asshats. =/
It honestly all went to shit as soon as it was open to anyone over the age of 11 or whatever the restriction is. lol

Most of the friends and family I was raised around are conservative Mormons. My mom thought it was the end of times during the Lewinsky scandal. My aunt is essentially a Glenn Beck feed. I love these people, even if they're partially insane.

Yeah, I just don't accept those requests. Admittedly, it's pretty hard for them to guilt trip me from the other side of the globe so I am lucky there!

 

[biggersmaller]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...lary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/

"Using a personal email account exclusively is a potent prescription for flouting the Federal Records Act and circumventing the Freedom of Information Act," Metcalfe said. "And there can be little doubt that Clinton knew this full well."

She's a career politician who didn't comply from the start. Compliance would have been using a government email account that captured her correspondence and made it available in the event of a FOIA request. She knew this was the case and intentionally obfuscated her business dealings as Secretary of State.

She is the ONLY Secretary of State to exclusively use a personal email account. She never once used a .gov account. That's shady as fuck. Not surprising though. It's Hilary.

Great post. It's pretty clear to me this server was maintained to avoid FOIA inquiries.

I've only voted Democrat. This will be the first year I will be ashamed of it. She is just damn lucky she is running against Trump.

 

[DrROBschiz]

I wasn't aware they mishandled top secret national security information. If so, yes, bring down the hammer.

My guess is that she isnt the only one who mishandled the information

It could be a systemic and work culture issue affecting multiple government agencies and department

When you have poor policies in place that lead to rampant misuse are you really going to throw one high profile person under the bus for the whole thing?

Im not saying she wasnt negligent but Im guessing we arent getting the whole story here. Its possible big chunks of our government workbase could be guilty of not handling sensitive information properly and why I dont think an indictment is going to happen

 

[BokehKing]

So again, what consequences do you guys think Clinton should face? A fine? Future security clearance privileges revoked?

Thoughts?

She shouldn't be viable to run for president, parachute In Uncle Joe, save the world.

My guess is that she isnt the only one who mishandled the information

Of course there are others, but they are not running for president

 

[Miggytronz]

Now project that to the head of your entire organization, and see what happens. She was careless. She was a bit negligent. She was not criminally negligent, and even the FBI admits there was no actual legal case there. They just wanted to go on a partisan tirade, which everyone who actually follows news knows is unprecedented for a YOU ARE NOT GETTING INDICTED story.

You can say she's careless, you can say she's negligent. Hell, I might even agree. Everyone makes mistakes, I'm sure after this she'll be more careful in the future. But it was clearly not malicious, nobody actually ended up getting hurt, and nothing illegal occurred.

It really is time to deal.with.this. Legal experts since the start of this knew she wasn't getting indicted, because the law is not there for this sort of thing. She wasn't handing government secrets off to anyone nefarious, she was simply not careful and ignored guidance on the subject. People really need to learn when to let things go. This is not even in the same sport of serious things politicians have done just this year alone.

What she and others did was very illegal. Hell if this was any other American citizen at a private military contracting company they would lose their clearance, lose their job and probably see jail time.

I work for a company that builds Nuclear Aircraft Carriers for the Navy. If I had done what Hilary did I 100% would lose my job and see some jail time. Hell I 100% wouldn't find a job in military contracting again. Let alone have a hard time finding a job after all that.

 

[Saint Gregory]

Had the FBI had proof that messages or information marked classified had been sent by Clinton she would have been charged. Case closed.

Anyone who has worked in a classified environment understands how easy it is to have what appeared to have happened in this case to occur. Any discussion that you have about any subject can start to veer into information that could be deemed classified even if you talk about it in non-specific terms. The safest course of action is to just discuss everything on systems with the highest levels of classification to avoid issues with spillage but if you're a mobile employee, especially during that time period, finding a SCIF and then getting everyone else you want to speak to in a SCIF wasn't easy. Things have gotten much better over the years as people have gotten more familiar with the rules and policies governing the handling of classified information on different technology systems but I can remember when accidental spillages in my office happened too often.

It's extremely telling to me that in my office full of Hillary hating Republicans I haven't heard a peep about this today. As much as they hate her deep down they're thinking "god forbid anyone goes through my emails with a fine toothed comb". They all know that they probably have unknowingly made the same mistakes at some point.

 

[DrROBschiz]

First paragraph: yes, every person needs to make their own assessment. But we shouldn't make those assessments from the mindset of a purist. Hillary Clinton is not an IT admin. She handled her email in a functionally similar method as her predecessor, Colin Powell, the only prior Sec. of State to have any real use of email. She happened to do so at a time when email went from a fringe form of communication in political circles to the most popular method of correspondence in the entire world. This was also at a time of rapidly increasing cyber security risks and a rapidly evolving standard of "secure".

The FBI has never said that she herself sent classified information, just that she was included in seven chains that somewhere within did include classified information.

Would you want to hire Clinton to be the IT director of a company? Obviously not, but then that was clear well before this. We're seeing this all directed at Clinton when in reality the federal government as an institution has been slow to react to the rapid advancement of communication technology over the last few decades in general. It was a case of poor judgement to not just use two distinct accounts with the second being the .gov account but this should have never even been her decision to make.

As for the second paragraph: equating Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump on the "two worst options" spectrum is, frankly, moronic. She is a very intelligent, very capable, and very proven public official. Donald Trump is a con man either playing to racism and xenophobia or himself an ardent believer in those most base elements of his populist movement. Clinton might, depending on what you believe, have issues with transparency and open governance. Donald Trump is literally a neo-fascist.

Hillary Clinton would likely be an effective and generally progressive POTUS, if not the most transparent or transformative. She would likely serve the post better than George W. Bush ever did, Al Gore would have, comparable to her husband's tenure, better than Dole ever would have, and better than any of G.H.W. Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, or Nixon. So "worst choice" but still likely to be better at the post than everyone but a handful of all the options we've had to even choose from over the past ~25 years and better than everyone who actually held the office for about 25 years before that.

Truly a worst case scenario though, right?

So assuming that this is actually the case of a systemic issue and misuse by various departments

Does the FBI stop here? Who takes over and enforces how secure communications should be conducted at various levels of government?

Have changes already been implemented or are they being worked on? Clearly the policies and procedures are either being ignored or misunderstood

 

[BokehKing]

We have come a long way of everyone being nervous about Obamas blackberry security back in 2009 to now when "everyone's doing it, who cares"

http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/2013/04/how-obamas-blackberry-got-secured.html?m=1

 

[digdug2k]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...lary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/

"Using a personal email account exclusively is a potent prescription for flouting the Federal Records Act and circumventing the Freedom of Information Act," Metcalfe said. "And there can be little doubt that Clinton knew this full well."

She's a career politician who didn't comply from the start. Compliance would have been using a government email account that captured her correspondence and made it available in the event of a FOIA request. She knew this was the case and intentionally obfuscated her business dealings as Secretary of State.

She is the ONLY Secretary of State to exclusively use a personal email account. She never once used a .gov account. That's shady as fuck. Not surprising though. It's Hilary.

This isn't true. The State Department report also says that she went further than others historically have to preserve records and provide them. i.e. there's literally zero evidence (the FBI investigated and reiterated that yesterday too) to even insinuate this was some attempt to hide things. And if it was, it was the dumbest attempt to hide things you could ever think of. i.e. I'm sure just about every politician in Washington has methods of communication set up that let them talk to each other "off the record". Using the same email account they use for everything else likely isn't one of them.

This is perhaps the dumbest political "scandal" I've ever seen in my 35 years of political, and there've been some dumb ones over the years. I'll be happy to see it die.

 

[Rabbi_Vole]

Had the FBI had proof that messages or information marked classified had been sent by Clinton she would have been charged. Case closed.

Anyone who has worked in a classified environment understands how easy it is to have what appeared to have happened in this case to occur. Any discussion that you have about any subject can start to veer into information that could be deemed classified even if you talk about it in non-specific terms. The safest course of action is to just discuss everything on systems with the highest levels of classification to avoid issues with spillage but if you're a mobile employee, especially during that time period, finding a SCIF and then getting everyone else you want to speak to in a SCIF wasn't easy. Things have gotten much better over the years as people have gotten more familiar with the rules and policies governing the handling of classified information on different technology systems but I can remember when accidental spillages in my office happened too often.

It's extremely telling to me that in my office full of Hillary hating Republicans I haven't heard a peep about this today. As much as they hate her deep down they're thinking "god forbid anyone goes through my emails with a fine toothed comb". They all know that they probably have unknowingly made the same mistakes at some point.

But a few were marked. They sited volume and intent as reasons not to indict.

 

[Drek]

Great post. It's pretty clear to me this server was maintained to avoid FOIA inquiries.

I've only voted Democrat. This will be the first year I will be ashamed of it. She is just damn lucky she is running against Trump.

Except she complied when asked for the documents and fully cooperated with the investigation.

I'd argue her reasoning was twofold: 1. a matter of convenience with regards to using a single email server and portable device (her own statement) and 2. a private server in order to protect her personal email as she has long been the target of unscrupulous Republican and journalist scrutiny. (demonstrated in that being the one segment of the emails she tried to withhold, and by the FBI's probe made a relatively clean cut despite a very narrow time window to comply).

An example of where this comes from: a major publication harassed her barely 18 year old daughter about the Lewinsky scandal and when the Clintons asked that it not continue the response they got was "she's an adult and we think she has valuable insight". But still people are surprised that she's rather secretive.

But a few were marked. They sited volume and intent as reasons not to indict.

A few emails within the entire State Dept. pull were marked, they never said the ones she sent or received were.

 

[Saint Gregory]

But a few were marked. They sited volume and intent as reasons not to indict.

It wasn't clear to me that she was the sender of the messages. But either someone marked a document classified on a non-class email system or someone scanned in one, there's no way to forward classified email to a private or unclassified gov't account. If it was the latter then someone should be in incredible trouble but not necessarily Clinton if she was only the recipient.

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that someone who understood derivative markings sent a marked message over unclassified email. Something isn't being communicated properly here. Either the director misspoke and meant messages that were marked after review or maybe he just meant messages that were marked "confidential" or "for official use only" which technically are classification markings.

 

[Drek]

So assuming that this is actually the case of a systemic issue and misuse by various departments

Does the FBI stop here? Who takes over and enforces how secure communications should be conducted at various levels of government?

Have changes already been implemented or are they being worked on? Clearly the policies and procedures are either being ignored or misunderstood

Are those other departments headed by Hillary Clinton? No? Then who gives a fuck? That's the gist of it.

Kerry has cleaned up the State Department's methods to some degree (though he wasn't in great compliance himself before this whole thing broke). There is basically no real monitoring of congresspeople and senators who are on security committees from my understanding, they work in much the same gray area Clinton was in when she first started. There are standards and rules cited when you get clearance and the assumption is that you will comply 100% with little to no oversight, guidance, or assistance in achieving it.

 

[Rabbi_Vole]

It wasn't clear to me that she was the sender of the messages. But either someone marked a document classified on a non-class email system or someone scanned in one, there's no way to forward classified email to a private or unclassified gov't account. If it was the latter then someone should be in incredible trouble but not necessarily Clinton if she was only the recipient.

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that someone who understood derivative markings sent a marked message over unclassified email. Something isn't being communicated properly here. Either the director misspoke and meant messages that were marked after review or maybe he just meant messages that were marked "confidential" or "for official use only" which technically are classification markings.

Well, I'm sure the Ryan probe will get to the bottom of it.

 

[Tragicomedy]

I'd rather hear some options from the intelligence community and law enforcement than listen to politicians, pundits, and political fanboys loudly jerk off over what they want to happen to her.

Okay. No more home server when she's in the White House, but that's a foregone conclusion.

 

[Jacksinthe]

You're suggesting dereliction of duty by the FBI?

Can you read what I actually wrote instead if what you want please?

Read the last paragraph of my other post. I mention why I feel no indictment came.

Again - clear as can be.

I don't know what your bone is, dude. Lay off.

 

[Saint Gregory]

Well, I'm sure the Ryan probe will get to the bottom of it.

If I believed that the purposes of any of these hearings were actually to get to the bottom of these questions I'd agree with you.

 

[Gorechylde]

This isn't true. The State Department report also says that she went further than others historically have to preserve records and provide them. i.e. there's literally zero evidence (the FBI investigated and reiterated that yesterday too) to even insinuate this was some attempt to hide things. And if it was, it was the dumbest attempt to hide things you could ever think of. i.e. I'm sure just about every politician in Washington has methods of communication set up that let them talk to each other "off the record". Using the same email account they use for everything else likely isn't one of them.

This is perhaps the dumbest political "scandal" I've ever seen in my 35 years of political, and there've been some dumb ones over the years. I'll be happy to see it die.

She shouldn't have to preserve records and provide them as they should have been captured on an encrypted .gov email server to begin with. She did a great job "preserving records" when she had her aids deleting government correspondence on the eve of a FOIA request.

Although some former secretaries of state occasionally used personal emails for official business, Clinton is the only one who never once used an @state.gov email address in the era of email. Some have questioned whether that practice violated rules regulating email use, transparency, records management or security

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...lary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/

What's ambiguous about that statement?

People keep comparing Clinton's email handling to Colin Powell when it's not really relevant. Powell's correspondence could have been procured in the event of a FOIA request 3 years after he left his post.

Like Clinton, Powell used a personal email address. However, there’s a big difference: Clinton hosted her email on a private server located in her home. Powell did not.

Many politicians use private addresses, but private servers like the one Clinton used are rarely seen, said John Wonderlich, a policy director at the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan group focused on government transparency, for a prior PolitiFact story.

And there’s a big difference between a private account, which is generally free and simple to start, and a private server, which requires a more elaborate setup.

The Atlantic speculated the Clintons "may have wanted to be in control of the encryption of their correspondence, ensuring that no third parties — whether commercial, hacker, or government — were able to snoop on them.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...y-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/

Clinton, a high ranking government employee subject to government oversight and Freedom of Information Requests, intentionally hid her government dealings on a private server that no one else had access to. Then she had her aids delete government emails, emails that were subject to a FOIA request and only present on her server, so she couldn't be held accountable for her actions as Secretary of State. When pressed, she lied about it repeatedly and at length. Once again, shady as fuck.

Lie, misdirect, obfuscate, lie some more. That's ok though. She gets a Clinton pass.

Transparency is for the plebs right?

 

[DryvBy]

As an independent, it's amazing to see this as "not a big deal" by liberals. This reeks of the "not a big deal" when Bush signed the Patriot Act from conservatives.

Just keep being a bunch of party puppets.

 

[GloriousBagel]

The yassss queen is untouchable, just like Bush Jr. was.

 

[jon bones]

As an independent, it's amazing to see this as "not a big deal" by liberals. This reeks of the "not a big deal" when Bush signed the Patriot Act from conservatives.

Just keep being a bunch of party puppets.

...you're conflating this to the Patriot Act?

 

[Ozigizo]

...you're conflating this to the Patriot Act?

He also pretty much did the equivalent to "Stay woke, fam."

My eyes rolled pretty hard.

 

[BobTheFork]

As an independent, it's amazing to see this as "not a big deal" by liberals. This reeks of the "not a big deal" when Bush signed the Patriot Act from conservatives.

Just keep being a bunch of party puppets.

When multiple investigations and the FBI don't believe it warrants indictment but 'people on the internet' think it's a really big deal, I'm not going to side with people on the internet

 

[pigeon]

People need to remember Hillary is a fucking smart ass lawyer. This whole notion that Barack Obama Hillary Clinton doesn't know what she's doing is a little hard to swallow

I support her (lol gotta stick this disclaimer in everywhere) but she is a mess sometimes

I think she honestly fucked up and successfully covered her tracks

Hillary's very smart about a lot of things but cmon, she's like 80.

She only writes email on her Blackberry! SHE WON'T USE LAPTOPS FOR EMAIL

WHEN THEY ASKED HER IF SHE WIPED THE SERVER SHE THOUGHT THEY MEANT DUSTING IT

I've made my peace with the fact that Hillary is an old person who will be calling Obama to ask her how the White House Facebook account works. "I think it got deleted."

The problem with being an extremely capable and smart person is that when you have a glaring blind spot in your knowledge base it catches everybody by surprise.

 

[GloriousBagel]

Hillary's very smart about a lot of things but cmon, she's like 80.

She only writes email on her Blackberry! SHE WON'T USE LAPTOPS FOR EMAIL

WHEN THEY ASKED HER IF SHE WIPED THE SERVER SHE THOUGHT THEY MEANT DUSTING IT

I've made my peace with the fact that Hillary is an old person who will be calling Obama to ask her how the White House Facebook account works. "I think it got deleted."

The problem with being an extremely capable and smart person is that when you have a glaring blind spot in your knowledge base it catches everybody by surprise.

Please tell me this is sarcasm

 

[DryvBy]

...you're conflating this to the Patriot Act?

Yes, that's what I did exactly. I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. :/

In other words, you're a sucker for your party if you really don't find any of this to be a big deal. And you can roll your eyes but if this was a (R) politician, you'd be all over it with your virtual pitch fork.

When multiple investigations and the FBI don't believe it warrants indictment but 'people on the internet' think it's a really big deal, I'm not going to side with people on the internet

Sure thing as long as you don't care when judges let cops that murder blacks in this country off scott free to be a problem either. Because the official statement is the cop was just doing their job, ya know.

 

[pigeon]

Please tell me this is sarcasm

What part of it seemed like sarcasm to you? She's 68 years old. When my father was 60 I got an email from him where all the text was in the subject field.

 

[Gorechylde]

Hillary's very smart about a lot of things but cmon, she's like 80.

She only writes email on her Blackberry! SHE WON'T USE LAPTOPS FOR EMAIL

WHEN THEY ASKED HER IF SHE WIPED THE SERVER SHE THOUGHT THEY MEANT DUSTING IT

I've made my peace with the fact that Hillary is an old person who will be calling Obama to ask her how the White House Facebook account works. "I think it got deleted."

The problem with being an extremely capable and smart person is that when you have a glaring blind spot in your knowledge base it catches everybody by surprise.

If this is a serious post, I'd like to talk to you about an inheritance I have in line from New Delhi. I just need $1500 to unlock the account and then I'll pay you back double. It's legit I swear.

 

[Bladenic]

So again, what consequences do you guys think Clinton should face? A fine? Future security clearance privileges revoked?

Thoughts?

She doesn't deserve to be president that's for sure. But still better than Trump.

 

[pigeon]

If this is a serious post, I'd like to talk to you about an inheritance I have in line from New Delhi. I just need $1500 to unlock the account and then I'll pay you back double. It's legit I swear.

"Believing stuff is for suckers" is not a particularly good argument.

Did you have any actual reason to disbelieve, for example, the news reports, which I've already posted in this thread, that make it pretty clear that Hillary asked for a secured Blackberry in order to send emails on the government server and only set up a private server when her request was denied?

 

[Ozigizo]

Sure thing as long as you don't care when judges let cops that murder blacks in this country off scott free to be a problem either. Because the official statement is the cop was just doing their job, ya know.

Now you've compared the emails to murder?

Stahp

 

[jon bones]

Yes, that's what I did exactly. I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. :/

In other words, you're a sucker for your party if you really don't find any of this to be a big deal. And you can roll your eyes but if this was a (R) politician, you'd be all over it with your virtual pitch fork.

Sure thing as long as you don't care when judges let cops that murder blacks in this country off scott free to be a problem either. Because the official statement is the cop was just doing their job, ya know.

personal insult xx baseless assumption xx ludicrous comparison

the internet kid bnb

He also pretty much did the equivalent to "Stay woke, fam."

My eyes rolled pretty hard.

seriously 😂

 

[GloriousBagel]

What part of it seemed like sarcasm to you? She's 68 years old. When my father was 60 I got an email from him where all the text was in the subject field.

She's a 'reputable' politician, she should be able to use a fucking computer. She's running for president holy shit.