Whoa! Hillary instructs top aid to violate security protocols surrounding classified email?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

I'm giving you other possible explanations as to why she might have wanted the "identifying headings" removed.

Sure, we found the classified documents. However, we don't know how many of those were classified at the time she sent/received them (we know a lot were classified ex post facto) and/or we have yet to see any evidence that she knew any of them were classified. However, we don't know if any were stripped of her heading. If they were stripped, we don't know she directed it be done that way. These are the facts right now. Suggesting otherwise is nothing but speculation.

Do you have a "spam" folder with each email account you have? Do emails go into the "spam" folder "automatically"? How does "your system" distinguish between what goes in the "inbox" and what ends up in the "spam folder"? "Headings"?

Let's play "speculation" for a moment and pretend to be a "secured server" sending a "classified (as per the HEADING) document" to a "unsecure/nonsecure" server ... when the "nonsecure" server can't read the "heading" the transmission FAILS .... JUST LIKE IT DOES IF I GET A LETTER TRANSPOSED ON AN EMAIL ADDRESS!

So go back and take a look at the email exchanges in which she is advising a subordinate to remove the heading so it will be received by her "nonsecure" server. And ask yourself: "Why would she ask him to remove the "heading"?

Now what was the "link" you wanted to "prove" Hillarious is a lying sack of shit, and she not be trusted with "classified" information at any level, much less the level at which the POTUS must (and should) review information.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

I posted the following based on his posts several pages ago:

willful blindness is unassailable

Yep, why try.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Do you have a "spam" folder with each email account you have? Do emails go into the "spam" folder "automatically"? How does "your system" distinguish between what goes in the "inbox" and what ends up in the "spam folder"? "Headings"?

Let's play "speculation" for a moment and pretend to be a "secured server" sending a "classified (as per the HEADING) document" to a "unsecure/nonsecure" server ... when the "nonsecure" server can't read the "heading" the transmission FAILS .... JUST LIKE IT DOES IF I GET A LETTER TRANSPOSED ON AN EMAIL ADDRESS!

Thanks for the "lesson," but I am well versed in securely transmitting and authenticating messages. I've done extensive work with asymmetric keygen and encryption, as well as writing key wrap algorithms for symmetric/asymmetric encryption applications.

So go back and take a look at the email exchanges in which she is advising a subordinate to remove the heading so it will be received by her "nonsecure" server. And ask yourself: "Why would she ask him to remove the "heading"?

First, how do we know what heading she is talking about? It makes no sense that she is talking about an email heading if we are talking about converting a fax into a email. I would think that from the contents of the email and the way she talks about the document that we are talking about a heading of a document, not an email header.

Why she would do this? We've already been down this road: I don't know and neither do you. Assuming that this header was a classification of the document is just that: an assumption.

But you make a good point. It might be that, by default, any document coming from whoever is supposed to be sending her the TPs is secured (not classified) by default, whether it needs to be or not, as a safety measure. This might not even be her policy, but one in general. So while asking for it to be sent unsecured might be a sidestepping of the policy, it might be an acceptable one nor it does it indicate that what she sent was classified.

Now what was the "link" you wanted to "prove" Hillarious is a lying sack of shit, and she not be trusted with "classified" information at any level, much less the level at which the POTUS must (and should) review information.

Something that proves that she knowingly transmitted classified information. Not a few pieces of evidence that could be explained other ways as well.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

But what do you mean "so be it." Does that mean you will believe that these accusations against Hillary are untrue?

A decision not to prosecute doesn't mean the accusations are untrue - it only means the prosecutor doesn't think the evidence is sufficient to pursue a conviction. That's why I found Mukasey's article to be useful - he listed some of the evidence pertaining to Hillary's "state of mind" that could be used to show that she violated federal statutes. And that's just the evidence he is aware of. I am certain there's a lot more we don't know about yet.

It will be fascinating to watch this play out. I sense a lot of tension between James Comey and Loretta Lynch.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by lustylad

A decision not to prosecute doesn't mean the accusations are untrue - it only means the prosecutor doesn't think the evidence is sufficient to pursue a conviction. That's why I found Mukasey's article to be useful - he listed some of the evidence pertaining to Hillary's "state of mind" that could be used to show that she violated federal statutes. And that's just the evidence he is aware of. I am certain there's a lot more we don't know about yet.

It will be fascinating to watch this play out. I sense a lot of tension between James Comey and Loretta Lynch.

from what I understand, read and heard "state of mind" and proof of "knowingly" mishandling classified documents is not a requisite element of breaking the law in this matter

what I have heard concerning the law in matters of these state secrets is merely proof of mishandling

maybe its only some element of the espionage act that has to be proved to have been violated but what i heard was just that

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by lustylad

A decision not to prosecute doesn't mean the accusations are untrue - it only means the prosecutor doesn't think the evidence is sufficient to pursue a conviction. That's why I found Mukasey's article to be useful - he listed some of the evidence pertaining to Hillary's "state of mind" that could be used to support a guilty verdict. And that's just the evidence he is aware of. I am certain there's a lot more we don't know about yet.

It will be fascinating to watch this play out. I sense a lot of tension between James Comey and Loretta Lynch.

(Assuming no indictment) If they don't have enough evidence to indict, and you admit that they have "a lot more" than us, shouldn't posters admit that they didn't have enough information either?

But anyway, I am with you. Interested in seeing how this plays out.

[JD Barleycorn]

Here's the deal; any SAP message is presumed to be classified whether marked or not. Hillary signed paperwork attesting to her knowledge of that and agreeing to follow the law. Any documents that originated from inside the state department are classififed automatically even if they are just your daughter's wedding plans. You shouldn't be making wedding plans on workplace computers.

Face it, Hillary broke the law....repeatedly and just because of her own personal arrogance and need for secrecy. Former state department people say that it is VERY likely that her information on the server was hacked by China, Russia, Iran, and even North Korea. It has not been alleged yet but what will you say when someone can show that an asset was killed or captured because of a Hillary security breach?

[bambino]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

(Assuming no indictment) If they don't have enough evidence to indict, and you admit that they have "a lot more" than us, shouldn't posters admit that they didn't have enough information either?

But anyway, I am with you. Interested in seeing how this plays out.

I only know what I research on this matter. From Judges, lawyers, intelligence experts and government officials, there is enough evidence to indict her now. By all accounts, Comey is an honorable man. He's not a political hack. The Constitution and law are his guide. He wont back down to political pressure. He has committed large resources to investigate this matter. I feel comfortable that he will come to the correct conclusion. I'll be good with his findings.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...resign-protest

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by bambino

I only know what I research on this matter. From Judges, lawyers, intelligence experts and government officials, there is enough evidence to indict her now. By all accounts, Comey is an honorable man. He's not a political hack. The Constitution and law are his guide. He wont back down to political pressure. He has committed large resources to investigate this matter. I feel comfortable that he will come to the correct conclusion. I'll be good with his findings.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...resign-protest

this is how arrogant the Hildebitch is. with her kind of money, this of course could easily have been avoidable ...

"A private residence can be an “authorized” location, and non-government servers and networks can be “authorized” to house and transfer classified materials, but there are specific and stringent requirements for such authorization, and there is no indication that Clinton undertook the steps necessary to obtain it for her house, her private server, Platte River Networks, or her lawyers."

that cheap whore wouldn't even spend what amounts to pocket lint to actually set up this server securely. one 50K speaking engagement would have covered it.

and then none of this would be an issue. how .. HOW can you vote for someone so arrogant and apparently stupid?

i await the response of of assholelicker the defender of all things libtard to present a counter argument on why the Hildebitch couldn't have spent a fraction of her amassed fortune on this? WHY?

because she actually thinks her poop doesn't stink and that she's above the law. so did Leona Helmsley and Martha Stewart and either of them have more money than the Hildebitch and Billy Blythe combined.

and they both went to prison. you libfucks do realize that the Hildebitch could be convicted of treason yeah? if it can be shown that US interests were compromised and that her actions were intentional, even in peacetime she could get the death penalty .. oh yes .. the DEATH PENALTY!


http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/c...82&context=clr

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Thanks for the "lesson," but I am well versed in securely transmitting and authenticating messages.

Of course you are! That's why it's so difficult for you to wrap your "brain" around the simple-minded deception of Hillarious and "why" she did it. Or is it that you actually know and you are just being difficult period.

The "pattern" of lack of credibility that Hillarious has cultivated and nurtured over the years of public presence as Bill's wife (about as commendable as being a "community organizer") factors into the equation as to her current behavior and "explanations" regarding her NONEXISTENT emails that have suddenly appeared after a Judge had to order them produced. Keep in mind that EVERYONE produced by the SOS is still ON HER SERVER'S HARD DRIVE (and you know that also, because of your "extensive knowledge" of all things computer) that are being (or have been) harvested by COMEY and his band of loyal investigators. But in your blind loyalty to Hillarious, you choose to ignore THOSE FACTS! As you pretend to be "fair and balanced" while you wait for an "indictment" as proof that she violated numerous Federal laws, as well as common sense and good judgment, and loyalty to the belief that U.S. voters should know the truth about her behavior and conduct BEFORE THEY VOTE FOR HER!

Talking the talk is not walking the walk.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Of course you are! That's why it's so difficult for you to wrap your "brain" around the simple-minded deception of Hillarious and "why" she did it. Or is it that you actually know and you are just being difficult period.

The "pattern" of lack of credibility that Hillarious has cultivated and nurtured over the years of public presence as Bill's wife (about as commendable as being a "community organizer") factors into the equation as to her current behavior and "explanations" regarding her NONEXISTENT emails that have suddenly appeared after a Judge had to order them produced. Keep in mind that EVERYONE produced by the SOS is still ON HER SERVER'S HARD DRIVE (and you know that also, because of your "extensive knowledge" of all things computer) that are being (or have been) harvested by COMEY and his band of loyal investigators. But in your blind loyalty to Hillarious, you choose to ignore THOSE FACTS! As you pretend to be "fair and balanced" while you wait for an "indictment" as proof that she violated numerous Federal laws, as well as common sense and good judgment, and loyalty to the belief that U.S. voters should know the truth about her behavior and conduct BEFORE THEY VOTE FOR HER!

Talking the talk is not walking the walk.

Did I ever tell yinz I'm a Russian aviator? Yeah, that's the ticket! I'm a fuckn Russian Aviator. Just like eatbullshit is an IT expert.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bambino

Я fuckn русской Авиатор

Исправлена ​​это для вас . (FIFY)

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by bambino

I only know what I research on this matter. From Judges, lawyers, intelligence experts and government officials, there is enough evidence to indict her now. By all accounts, Comey is an honorable man. He's not a political hack. The Constitution and law are his guide. He wont back down to political pressure. He has committed large resources to investigate this matter. I feel comfortable that he will come to the correct conclusion. I'll be good with his findings.

And there are judges, lawyers, intelligence experts and government officials who say there isn't enough (at least publicly known). When it comes to taking down someone politically powerful, you are going to find people from all walks of life who are going to reiterate the opinion that you want to hear. That doesn't make them right.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...resign-protest

On that point, I am still waiting for anyone here to offer up non-circumstantial evidence that she knowingly sent or received classified documents. The only pieces of evidence offered up so far are "classified material was found on her server," which could be easily explained as some things being made classified ex post facto or she simply did not know the material was classified, and the email chain at discussion in this thread, which no one has been able to demonstrate is actually referring to a piece of classified information.

So you can parrot the opinions of some experts, who may or may not have other motives behind their opinions, or you can prove your point. Your choice.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Of course you are! That's why it's so difficult for you to wrap your "brain" around the simple-minded deception of Hillarious and "why" she did it. Or is it that you actually know and you are just being difficult period.

I don't follow at all. How does me actually having experience with both classified material and with encryption/authentication mean that it is hard for me to understand both?

The "pattern" of lack of credibility that Hillarious has cultivated and nurtured over the years of public presence as Bill's wife (about as commendable as being a "community organizer") factors into the equation as to her current behavior and "explanations" regarding her NONEXISTENT emails that have suddenly appeared after a Judge had to order them produced. Keep in mind that EVERYONE produced by the SOS is still ON HER SERVER'S HARD DRIVE (and you know that also, because of your "extensive knowledge" of all things computer) that are being (or have been) harvested by COMEY and his band of loyal investigators. But in your blind loyalty to Hillarious, you choose to ignore THOSE FACTS! As you pretend to be "fair and balanced" while you wait for an "indictment" as proof that she violated numerous Federal laws, as well as common sense and good judgment, and loyalty to the belief that U.S. voters should know the truth about her behavior and conduct BEFORE THEY VOTE FOR HER!

I'm not going to debate any "pattern." I'll stick to the topic at hand. If you have any non-circumstantial evidence, I would like to see it. But your repeated attacks on me are not evidence of anything. Sorry. I hope the investigation ends soon, so that the voters have a chance to vote based on the actual facts of the case, rather than the partisan spin all people (from both sides of the isle) are putting on the facts as we know them.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

On that point, I am still waiting for anyone here to offer up non-circumstantial evidence that she knowingly sent or received classified documents.

Why do you insist on ONLY "non-circumstantial evidence"?

Are you expecting to see a video of her sitting at her computer at home looking at a "classified" email on the monitor? Do you actually think there will be "digital" DIRECT EVIDENCE that HILLARY CLINTON downloaded a "classified" email to her personal unsecured server? If you are the expert you say you are, you already know the answer!

Just to establish some parameters: Do you still believe Bush lied about WMD's?

As far as any "attack" ... your self-proclaimed expertise is always "fair game"! Even more so now!

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Why do you insist on ONLY "non-circumstantial evidence"?

Because evidence that can be easily explained by actions that aren't illegal doesn't really prove anything. But, you are right, I shouldn't reject all circumstantial evidence because we could always argue that someone hacked Hillary's email and sent/received any email marked "confidential." So I would be willing to accept strong circumstantial evidence, or a significant amount of fairly strong circumstantial evidence. But right now we have two things: classified information found on the server, and an email chain that is asking for someone to remove a heading. Neither of these is particularly strong and both are easily explained by other, legal situations.

Are you expecting to see a video of her sitting at her computer at home looking at a "classified" email on the monitor? Do you actually think there will be "digital" DIRECT EVIDENCE that HILLARY CLINTON downloaded a "classified" email to her personal unsecured server? If you are the expert you say you are, you already know the answer!

I want to see something marked as classified that she sent or received. Something that she should have known was classified. Or that the piece of information that she asked to have the heading removed from was classified. There are many things that could make the case, unfortunately, no one here has provided any of them.

Just to establish some parameters: Do you still believe Bush lied about WMD's?

Do I still believe that? I'm not sure I've ever made that statement at all. Do I think we were misled about the threat Saddam's WMD "program" posed to us? Absolutely. Do I think Bush did so intentionally? Maybe, but I'm not sure.

As far as any "attack" ... your self-proclaimed expertise is always "fair game"! Even more so now!

I've got no problem with you questioning my expertise; I would question the expertise of anyone who claimed to be an expert in these types forums. My complaint was more with calling me "blind," indirectly attacking my intelligence by suggesting it is difficult for me to wrap my brain around something, and questioning my integrity by saying I'm intentionally being difficult, rather than debating honestly. These are useless attacks that don't add anything to the debate.