Dead candidate walking...

JD, is having an email that asks what time "The Good Wife" airs is that a security breech? Originally Posted by flghtr65

you should be asking, what time does "blind spot" air on NBC

Crazy LA

If a republican were involved, I'd be asking for patience, just as I am now. You are projecting your own inability for fairness onto me. I will defend what I believe is right, no matter what. If he is a hack, prove his statement incorrect. If Hillary indeed violated the law, she will be punished for it. If you are afraid she will get away with it, that is not something to take out on me. Deal with your anger and frustration on your own time, don't involve me. My personal belief is that if she is guilty, she should pay for it. Is that clear enough for you? Originally Posted by WombRaider

That's bullshit, and we all know it. Do I defend Republicans? Just because their Republicans? Hell, no! Like Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Obama, and others, Hillary has a long history of lies and corruption. She has not earned the benefit of the doubt. Chances are better than 99% that if she says something, she's lying. To take her word that she only erased personal emails is foolish, at best. She is scum. Her husband is scum. Her lawyer is scum. If anyone associated with her is not scum, they will become so before she is done with them. God, you and Fluffy are idiots.

That's bullshit, and we all know it. Do I defend Republicans? Just because their Republicans? Hell, no! Like Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Obama, and others, Hillary has a long history of lies and corruption. She has not earned the benefit of the doubt. Chances are better than 99% that if she says something, she's lying. To take her word that she only erased personal emails is foolish, at best. She is scum. Her husband is scum. Her lawyer is scum. If anyone associated with her is not scum, they will become so before she is done with them. God, you and Fluffy are idiots. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

She's not asking for the benefit of the doubt and your 99 percent number is pure hyperbolic bullshit. I'm not defending her because of the letter beside her name, idiot. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty or does that mean nothing to you?

That is a legal standard. You idiot. Hillary is a proven liar. She is guilty.

In court, everyone, well, it used to be everyone, now it's the rich, white people who are innocent until proven guilty. Or a celebrity. I'll bet you think OJ is innocent, don't you? Guess what. He's not. Neither is Hillary.

That is a legal standard. You idiot. Hillary is a proven liar. She is guilty.

In court, everyone, well, it used to be everyone, now it's the rich, white people who are innocent until proven guilty. Or a celebrity. I'll bet you think OJ is innocent, don't you? Guess what. He's not. Neither is Hillary. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

And sadly, you point out the difference between guilty/innocent in a court, and in reality. As I said many posts prior: she may well never see jail time, but it isn't because she is innocent. Too many trials have become debates over meanings that never were intended when the laws were passed.

By your logic someone could be at 5x the legal DWI limit, drive down the interstate going in the wrong direction at 120, but be legally blameless unless they hit someone.

Violating security policies, procedures, and laws is indeed illegal, independent of content. Originally Posted by Old-T

You missed the point. The contents of one of the 30,000 emails that was turned over as a "work related" email did have the question

What time does the show "The Good Wife" airs? JD thinks that this non-classified email belongs to the government. If Hillary had decided to delete this email she would not have been in violation of regulation 18 UFC 1924. Which reads as:

18 USC 1924
(a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both

You are more clueless with each post you make.

You missed the point. The contents of one of the 30,000 emails that was turned over as a "work related" email did have the question

What time does the show "The Good Wife" airs? JD thinks that this non-classified email belongs to the government. If Hillary had decided to delete this email she would not have been in violation of regulation 18 UFC 1924. Which reads as:

18 USC 1924
(a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both Originally Posted by flghtr65

Hildabeast's willful decision to set up and use a personal server at an insecure site to conduct all of her State Department business is the very definition of "knowingly", flighty.

She's not asking for the benefit of the doubt and your 99 percent number is pure hyperbolic bullshit. I'm not defending her because of the letter beside her name, idiot. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty or does that mean nothing to you? Originally Posted by WombRaider

Except the likes of Darren Wilson, George Zimmerman and every other policeman in the country that ends up having to shoot a black suspect. In fact in Darren Wilson's case he is still guilty even though an investigation by both local and federal agencies cleared him.

WR, you are an admitted hypocrite, racist and liar. Nobody believes anything you say anymore. You are just as believable as Hillary. Congrats.

"WR, you are an admitted hypocrite, racist and liar. Nobody believes anything you say anymore. You are just as believable as Hillary. Congrats."

He never misses an opportunity to say nothing.

From yesterday's WSJ. This is a good summary of where matters stand. It also mentions those two recent news stories cited by flighty and explains why they miss the big picture.


Hillary Clinton vs. Ashley Madison

A website for adulterers faces more accountability than a U.S. secretary of state.

By WILLIAM MCGURN
Aug. 31, 2015 7:21 p.m. ET

What a world we live in when a website promoting adultery is held more accountable than a U.S. secretary of state.

Only weeks after a hack exposed the names and other confidential information about Ashley Madison’s mostly male clientele, it’s hard to see how the company can recover. By contrast, Hillary Clinton remains the Democratic Party’s likely 2016 nominee for president, even though we’ve known since at least March 2013 (thanks to a Romanian hacker named Guccifer) that she conducted State Department business over her private email, which has in turn helped her evade the normal oversight and accountability for White House appointees.

How can this be?

One big reason is that much of the back-and-forth about Mrs. Clinton’s emails has focused on secondary disputes: the latest batch of emails coughed up by State in response to a federal judge’s order, the classified information that may be on these emails, and whether what she did was akin to the mishandling of classified information that resulted in a deal for Gen. David Petraeus under which he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.

These are all serious issues, and anyone who has worked in a White House and handled classified information (as this reporter has) understands how flimsy Mrs. Clinton’s excuses are. Not to mention how extraordinary her behavior was.

Even so, in a perverse way the public arguments over the classified content may be helping Mrs. Clinton in her continuing effort to confound and obscure. We now have two fresh examples. The first was a column last Thursday in the Washington Post in which the author concluded there was nothing criminal in how Mrs. Clinton handled classified info; the second was a Monday USA Today op-ed in which the former U.S. attorney who prosecuted Gen. Petraeus says there’s no comparison between the two cases.

Neither author addresses the smoking gun: Why Mrs. Clinton set up a private server for all her official email in the first place. Mrs. Clinton herself has avoided the server question, which is no surprise. Because there is no credible explanation that doesn’t implicate her in willful deceit.

It’s true that many officials have at one time sent emails over a personal instead of official account. But a personal email does not require a personal server. Nor does the Colin-Powell-Did-It defense apply here, because while Mr. Powell as secretary of state did send some work emails over his personal email, he never set up his own server.

Only one explanation makes any sense: Mrs. Clinton entered the Obama administration determined to put in place a system to help her avoid accountability. Democratic operative James Carville admitted as much on ABC’s “The Week” in March when he said: “I suspect she didn’t want Louie Gohmert”—a Republican congressman from Texas—“rifling through her emails.”

Remember, a private server has nothing to do with the convenience of having all your email accounts on one smartphone, Mrs. Clinton’s original excuse for mixing personal and official emails. It has nothing to do with whether classified information is marked. And it has nothing to do with whether her emails were about yoga or Chelsea’s wedding—or Benghazi or some looming Clinton Foundation conflict of interest.

Mrs. Clinton’s private server was about one thing: control. She used it to ensure she would be in a position to thwart effective oversight and accountability.

Shannen Coffin, a Bush administration lawyer who worked for both the Justice Department and Vice President Dick Cheney, points to the section of the U.S. Code that deals with officials who deliberately conceal, alter or destroy records belonging to government. It’s hard to see how this isn’t exactly what Mrs. Clinton intended when she set up her server.

“Prosectors at the Justice Department have to be considering that basic question,” Mr. Coffin says. “If Mrs. Clinton is cleared of mishandling classified info, and no one asks about the legality of the email system in general, then this isn’t a real investigation.”

We already know Mrs. Clinton did in fact conceal her emails from legitimate inquiries. To begin with, her emails were concealed from Freedom of Information requests and congressional subpoenas, because State did not have her private server and thus could not search it. We further know that she also edited—i.e., altered—some of the emails before she did turn them over. What we don’t yet know, and may never know, is what was on the 31,000 emails Mrs. Clinton destroyed.

She continues to benefit, moreover, from the way she, the Obama administration and the FBI have dragged their feet, even as a new Quinnipiac poll reveals that the top three words voters associate with her are “liar,” “dishonest” and “untrustworthy.” The point is, even though we know that she used her personal emails accounts to carry out State Deparment business, the most important emails may well remain hidden through the 2016 election—which she could win.

Not so for Ashley Madison, whose CEO has been forced out and whose planned public offering has been killed. Seems the market for adulterers has more exacting standards than the market for a Democratic presidential nominee.
.

Except the likes of Darren Wilson, George Zimmerman and every other policeman in the country that ends up having to shoot a black suspect. In fact in Darren Wilson's case he is still guilty even though an investigation by both local and federal agencies cleared him.

WR, you are an admitted hypocrite, racist and liar. Nobody believes anything you say anymore. You are just as believable as Hillary. Congrats. Originally Posted by Budman

and i hear he's rude to little old ladies and cuts in line at the movie theater!

"WR, you are an admitted hypocrite, racist and liar. Nobody believes anything you say anymore. You are just as believable as Hillary. Congrats."

He never misses an opportunity to say nothing. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

he is a prophylactic .. er prolific poster of terabytes of meaningless content.

Except the likes of Darren Wilson, George Zimmerman and every other policeman in the country that ends up having to shoot a black suspect. In fact in Darren Wilson's case he is still guilty even though an investigation by both local and federal agencies cleared him.

WR, you are an admitted hypocrite, racist and liar. Nobody believes anything you say anymore. You are just as believable as Hillary. Congrats. Originally Posted by Budman

Even Obama has said Wilson is innocent and the case is over. The fact that you have a chip on your shoulder is not my problem. You're an idiot, whether you admit it or not. The truth doesn't give a fuck what you think.

As for Zimmerman, I would think that after the bullshit he's done over the last 6 months, you guys would quit claiming him. He's obviously an idiot.

"WR, you are an admitted hypocrite, racist and liar. Nobody believes anything you say anymore. You are just as believable as Hillary. Congrats."

He never misses an opportunity to say nothing. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Whatever makes it easier for you to continue on with your willful ignorance.

From yesterday's WSJ. This is a good summary of where matters stand. It also mentions those two recent news stories cited by flighty and explains why they miss the big picture.


Hillary Clinton vs. Ashley Madison

A website for adulterers faces more accountability than a U.S. secretary of state.

By WILLIAM MCGURN
Aug. 31, 2015 7:21 p.m. ET

What a world we live in when a website promoting adultery is held more accountable than a U.S. secretary of state.

Only weeks after a hack exposed the names and other confidential information about Ashley Madison’s mostly male clientele, it’s hard to see how the company can recover. By contrast, Hillary Clinton remains the Democratic Party’s likely 2016 nominee for president, even though we’ve known since at least March 2013 (thanks to a Romanian hacker named Guccifer) that she conducted State Department business over her private email, which has in turn helped her evade the normal oversight and accountability for White House appointees.

How can this be?

One big reason is that much of the back-and-forth about Mrs. Clinton’s emails has focused on secondary disputes: the latest batch of emails coughed up by State in response to a federal judge’s order, the classified information that may be on these emails, and whether what she did was akin to the mishandling of classified information that resulted in a deal for Gen. David Petraeus under which he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.

These are all serious issues, and anyone who has worked in a White House and handled classified information (as this reporter has) understands how flimsy Mrs. Clinton’s excuses are. Not to mention how extraordinary her behavior was.

Even so, in a perverse way the public arguments over the classified content may be helping Mrs. Clinton in her continuing effort to confound and obscure. We now have two fresh examples. The first was a column last Thursday in the Washington Post in which the author concluded there was nothing criminal in how Mrs. Clinton handled classified info; the second was a Monday USA Today op-ed in which the former U.S. attorney who prosecuted Gen. Petraeus says there’s no comparison between the two cases.

Neither author addresses the smoking gun: Why Mrs. Clinton set up a private server for all her official email in the first place. Mrs. Clinton herself has avoided the server question, which is no surprise. Because there is no credible explanation that doesn’t implicate her in willful deceit.

It’s true that many officials have at one time sent emails over a personal instead of official account. But a personal email does not require a personal server. Nor does the Colin-Powell-Did-It defense apply here, because while Mr. Powell as secretary of state did send some work emails over his personal email, he never set up his own server.

Only one explanation makes any sense: Mrs. Clinton entered the Obama administration determined to put in place a system to help her avoid accountability. Democratic operative James Carville admitted as much on ABC’s “The Week” in March when he said: “I suspect she didn’t want Louie Gohmert”—a Republican congressman from Texas—“rifling through her emails.”

Remember, a private server has nothing to do with the convenience of having all your email accounts on one smartphone, Mrs. Clinton’s original excuse for mixing personal and official emails. It has nothing to do with whether classified information is marked. And it has nothing to do with whether her emails were about yoga or Chelsea’s wedding—or Benghazi or some looming Clinton Foundation conflict of interest.

Mrs. Clinton’s private server was about one thing: control. She used it to ensure she would be in a position to thwart effective oversight and accountability.

Shannen Coffin, a Bush administration lawyer who worked for both the Justice Department and Vice President Dick Cheney, points to the section of the U.S. Code that deals with officials who deliberately conceal, alter or destroy records belonging to government. It’s hard to see how this isn’t exactly what Mrs. Clinton intended when she set up her server.

“Prosectors at the Justice Department have to be considering that basic question,” Mr. Coffin says. “If Mrs. Clinton is cleared of mishandling classified info, and no one asks about the legality of the email system in general, then this isn’t a real investigation.”

We already know Mrs. Clinton did in fact conceal her emails from legitimate inquiries. To begin with, her emails were concealed from Freedom of Information requests and congressional subpoenas, because State did not have her private server and thus could not search it. We further know that she also edited—i.e., altered—some of the emails before she did turn them over. What we don’t yet know, and may never know, is what was on the 31,000 emails Mrs. Clinton destroyed.

She continues to benefit, moreover, from the way she, the Obama administration and the FBI have dragged their feet, even as a new Quinnipiac poll reveals that the top three words voters associate with her are “liar,” “dishonest” and “untrustworthy.” The point is, even though we know that she used her personal emails accounts to carry out State Deparment business, the most important emails may well remain hidden through the 2016 election—which she could win.

Not so for Ashley Madison, whose CEO has been forced out and whose planned public offering has been killed. Seems the market for adulterers has more exacting standards than the market for a Democratic presidential nominee.
. Originally Posted by lustylad

Wouldn't be a wednesday without Lusty Tard copying and pasting an entire WSJ OPINION piece. Happy Wednesday, shitbird.