1. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    09 Sep '16 14:461 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Hillary's playing fast and loose with security of classified information is absolutely a scandal. That she wasn't indicted doesn't mean it should not be taken into consideration. Even if not criminal, he conduct absolutely shows a "rules are for lesser people" attitude.
    Clinton had no incentive for malicious intent; all it shows is an "I'm not that good with computers"-attitude. What she didn't do is hire the right IT support staff that could have explained to her how the system works and what she could and couldn't do. Of course she most likely just inherited the old IT support - and indeed her handling of e-mails is hardly unprecedented. The focus on them is.
  2. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    09 Sep '16 14:47
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Clinton had no incentive for malicious intent; all it shows is an "I'm not that good with computers"-attitude. What she didn't do is hire the right IT support staff that could have explained to her how the system works and what she could and couldn't do. Of course she most likely just inherited the old IT support - and indeed her handling of e-mails is hardly unprecedented. The focus on them is.
    Ok, how many times have you used BleachBit when deleting your e-mails dingleberry?
  3. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    09 Sep '16 15:27
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Clinton had no incentive for malicious intent; all it shows is an "I'm not that good with computers"-attitude. What she didn't do is hire the right IT support staff that could have explained to her how the system works and what she could and couldn't do. Of course she most likely just inherited the old IT support - and indeed her handling of e-mails is hardly unprecedented. The focus on them is.
    Nobody can possibly believe that she was stupid enough to not at least have asked about the propriety of using her private server to bounce around top secret classified emails. Part of the clearance protocol is to be told about these rules and agree to abide by them.

    If stupidity is her excuse, it's one heck of a dose of stupidity.
  4. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    09 Sep '16 16:11
    Originally posted by sh76
    Nobody can possibly believe that she was stupid enough to not at least have asked about the propriety of using her private server to bounce around top secret classified emails. Part of the clearance protocol is to be told about these rules and agree to abide by them.

    If stupidity is her excuse, it's one heck of a dose of stupidity.
    Colin Powell has left all questions regarding Hillary being informed about her conduct to rest.

    Hillary was told by Powell that such activity was dangerous and to proceed with caution at her own risk.

    There is now no question that Hillary knew exactly what she was doing.
  5. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    09 Sep '16 16:15
    Originally posted by sh76
    Nobody can possibly believe that she was stupid enough to not at least have asked about the propriety of using her private server to bounce around top secret classified emails. Part of the clearance protocol is to be told about these rules and agree to abide by them.

    If stupidity is her excuse, it's one heck of a dose of stupidity.
    What did she have to gain by using a private server? Nothing. She probably just wasn't aware that it was (or would become) a big deal. Colin Powell did the same and no one seems to get their panties in a twist over it.

    But here we are again, talking about goddamn e-mails. Policy proposals. Criticize them. It's not hard. They're not that good.
  6. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    09 Sep '16 16:261 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What did she have to gain by using a private server? Nothing. She probably just wasn't aware that it was (or would become) a big deal. Colin Powell did the same and no one seems to get their panties in a twist over it.

    But here we are again, talking about goddamn e-mails. Policy proposals. Criticize them. It's not hard. They're not that good.
    What did she have to gain by a private server? Really?

    If she used e-mail through the system she was told to use, none of her e-mails would be missing right now dingleman.

    A private server was the only way she could erase them. What she did not count on, however, were hackers who would find those e-mails to be released later.
  7. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    09 Sep '16 17:431 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What did she have to gain by using a private server? Nothing. She probably just wasn't aware that it was (or would become) a big deal. Colin Powell did the same and no one seems to get their panties in a twist over it.

    But here we are again, talking about goddamn e-mails. Policy proposals. Criticize them. It's not hard. They're not that good.
    I don't know what her motives were. Maybe she didn't want other members of the government to have access to her emails. Maybe she wanted to be able to mix business with personal. I don't know. But what she did, even if not criminal, was reckless and unworthy of a commander-in-chief. Character matters in a President (and yes, Trump's character is even worse). Otherwise, we'd elect a computer with a set of positions.
  8. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    09 Sep '16 18:02
    Originally posted by sh76
    I don't know what her motives were. Maybe she didn't want other members of the government to have access to her emails. Maybe she wanted to be able to mix business with personal. I don't know. But what she did, even if not criminal, was reckless and unworthy of a commander-in-chief. Character matters in a President (and yes, Trump's character is even worse). Otherwise, we'd elect a computer with a set of positions.
    According to Powell's response to the criticism he recently received for doing the very same thing, he had cautioned Crooked Hillary regarding which servers to use, as State Department servers were subject to FOI requests, whereas private servers were not... while the latter were subject to hacking.

    FreakyKBH's no-charge analysis: she knew exactly what she was doing.

    'Nuff said.
  9. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    09 Sep '16 18:33
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    According to Powell's response to the criticism he recently received for doing the very same thing, he had cautioned Crooked Hillary regarding which servers to use, as State Department servers were subject to FOI requests, whereas private servers were not... while the latter were subject to hacking.

    FreakyKBH's no-charge analysis: she knew exactly what she was doing.

    'Nuff said.
    I wonder where the partisan shill Marauder is to refute all this.

    LOL.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree