RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
Me too.
-
Features
Emails - the gift that won't ^&%$$^$^&*! stop giving
- Thread starter Don2 (Don1 Revised)
- Start date
Me too.
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
I always think of the Catch-22 quote: we know you're guilty, we just have to figure out what you did.
Interfering with the GOP conquest of America.
Colonel Sanders
Veteran Member
I don't give a pass to Trump because he's a fucking idiot with not just bad ideas, but really bad and underdeveloped ideas. He also has the support of skinheads, the KKK, rubes who wish they could have babies with their guns, and the rest of the anti-intellectual crowd that makes me embarrassed to be an American right now. He's shit for brains with no experience in governing and was successful, not because of any unique business acumen, but because he was handed not just a million dollars to build a business with, but also an entire structure and management support system that all but guaranteed success. He's fucked over small business time and again, bombed on a significant percentage of his projects outside of his comfort zone and is more of a celebrity than anything else.
Fuck him. He can't hold a candle to Hillary Clinton's experience, intellect, and demeanor. He's a goddamn clown who happened to be the most interesting grease-painted, fright wig wearing fuck that fell out of the Republican clown car this time around.
RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
That was one hell of an awesome rant
And yes, I agreed with every word of it! AWESOME!
braces_for_impact
Veteran Member
and this is different from donald trump how, exactly?
Look, if you can't tell the difference between another corrupt lying politician with a sketchy past and lots of excuses and and someone that is so inept, narcissistic and ignorant of how the world works in such a basic way as to LITERALLY spread war, political and economic disaster you have a serious, serious problem. The two are not even remotely equatable, and to pretend they are is to show how much you have drunk the kool-aid.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Is there anyone else on this forum besides me who has held a government security clearance? Who has had to take compusec and infosec training?
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,240
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Why would that be relevant, given that the Secretary of State would not have taken such training? That's for the staff, not the bosses.
I mean, it's likely recommended that new Secretaries of State take such courses, but they have a LOT of other shit on their plate, and who is going to force them to do it? Would you have done them, if you were very, very busy, and it was entirely optional, with no impact on your pay or job assignments?
I have to take a whole raft of mandatory training and refresher courses at work, dealing with security of data amongst other things; I am fully aware that most of my co-workers don't pay much attention to such courses, and do just the bear minimum needed to pass the assessment so they can keep their jobs; The big bosses certainly never show up in the classroom, and I very much doubt that they do the courses. The purpose of such 'training' is not to educate the staff, but to provide evidence, if a leak occurs, that the bosses did everything they could to prevent the leak - "Look, here are the training records!" - and are therefore not left with their arses swinging in the breeze.
The junior employees are responsible for learning the rules, and obeying them. The senior employees are only responsible for making the minimum effort to ensure that the juniors can't drop them in it by saying "Nobody ever said that I wasn't meant to take confidential/classified material home on the bus!".
This is not how it should be, of course. But it is how it IS. Secretaries of State are not fired for failing to take or pass an information security course - they are only fired if an actual breach occurs, that they can't pin on an underling.
It is far from clear whether any actual breach has occurred; and even less clear that Hillary herself was directly responsible. In principle, of course, she is indirectly responsible for all breaches from her department - but nobody sacks a Secretary of State because she didn't prevent a junior embassy staffer in Burkino Faso from mentioning some fairly unimportant gossip from work to his girlfriend - even if that breach leads to deaths, and the staffer is found guilty of treason.
In the real world, it is reasonable to expect a Secretary of State to care about security; but it is NOT reasonable to expect her to have sat, much less passed, the security courses that her staff are required to take. Crazy, perhaps, but true.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,803
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Breaking news: FBI not recommending charges against Clinton.
James Comey - No reasonable prosecutor would bring charges in this case.
James Comey - No reasonable prosecutor would bring charges in this case.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
/mod
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,803
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Thanks. I just saw it on CNN and was working on finding a link.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,450
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
OMG!!! The conspiracy continues. Clinton is guilty of the worst crimes since like ever. And the Obama Machine just let her walk. OMG! OMG! OMG!
There is nothing left to stop her from taking all of our guns now!
Achwienichtig
Member
I listened to the news conference. It's just more of the same. The Clintons have an incredible knack for being unethical while staying just this side of criminal. I have been having such a hard time trying to decide if I'm going to vote for Clinton this election or vote third party/write in. I was honestly hoping for an indictment, not because I want to damage the democrats' chances of winning, but because I want a democrat I can vote for in good conscience to be the nominee.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,450
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Clinton probably hid emails that she was copying people that may not have had proper access to. However, it is my belief that this information was not being 'leaked' in the interest of silencing critics of the Administration or would act against American interests.
On the other hand, the George W. Bush administration leaked the ID of a NOC-list level CIA Agent because that person's husband was critical of the BS evidence of WMDs in Iraq. The George W. Bush administration leaked CIA capabilities of arming our drones, something that was top secret at the time. They just blurted it out in a press conference how a drone targeted and killed someone in Syria. The W Admin also worked real fucking hard to convince the American people about a threat from Iraq that didn't exist. This cost the lives of thousands of American troops and easily over 100,000 Iraqi civilians.
So when we look at what Clinton did wrong, verses what she could have really done wrong... and the price that came with the wrongs to American interests and allies, I think it is very important to keep things in perspective.
Elixir
Made in America
Yeah, well ... it's all over but the shouting. I will vote the dem ticket only because I want to have some voice in defeating the Trump chump. If I voted a write-in or libertarian, then Trump won and went on to appoint people to the SCOTUS, I'd never live it down. Better to put up with 4 years of the status quo and at least get a court that isn't full of Scalias.
repoman
Contributor
Stole this from a Ben Shapiro tweet this morning:
Another question is whether this security breach was something that can normally be prosecuted regardless of intent. That is the only question that matters.
Another question is whether this security breach was something that can normally be prosecuted regardless of intent. That is the only question that matters.
Achwienichtig
Member
Along the lines of intent, here's a little something I just read on the national review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,450
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Isn't it funny how the National Review alleges a strawman argument, and then uses a false claim to suggest that Clinton was proven to have broken the law and was guilty of "grossly negligent mishandling". If you look online, one will find that term as a right-wing dog whistle about the emails.
Achwienichtig
Member
The head of the FBI called HRC's actions "extremely careless" and went on to say that "any reasonable person" would have known better, and that her actions likely resulted in security breaches.
The only reason he himself didn't call it grossly negligent was because he would then be forced to recommend indictment. In short, he called it grossly negligent without actually using that term, so as to indictment.
No strawman here.