PDA

View Full Version : Secretary Clinton's Email Server



Mjölnir
08-13-2015, 04:28 AM
Hillary Clinton will now turnover her personal email server that was used during her tenure as Secretary of State.

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/11/politics/hillary-clinton-email-server-justice-department/

The IG report summary statement (http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/210-press-releases-2015/1232-statement-from-the-inspectors-general-of-the-intelligence-community-and-the-department-of-state-regarding-the-review-of-former-secretary-clinton-s-emails) makes it sound like at least some of the emails were classified & properly marked as such prior to being sent to the private server, the markings were removed but the text/substance of the emails not edited to remove data and the emails (substance intact) then sent via unclassified systems.


The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Departments; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

Now, If a layman receives an email that is not marked as classified on an unclassified system they would/should assume that the email isn't classified. An intel professional or someone who deals with this kind of stuff daily would immediately know that something was amiss. Mrs. Clinton is somewhere between the two (neither a layman but not an intel professional.) I do think she is smart enough to think that some of the data could have been sensitive. As the one who had the server set up for her convenience she clearly should have established better procedures for how classified information would be sent to the Secretary of State (does anyone think that SECSTATE or any cabinet Secretary is going to deal entirely with unclassified information?) Additionally, whoever removed the markings and put the data on an unclassified system violated several regulations (possibly he law.)

Mrs. Clinton is far from stupid, I don't think the establishment of a private server was an attempt to circumvent security regulations or to compromise classified data -- it appears to be an effort to circumvent Federal Records Management Laws, but without the discovery of classified information on that private server I don't think we would have seen this server turned over to the government.


http://www.sailorbob.com/phpbb/download/file.php?id=2387

Absinthe Anecdote
08-13-2015, 11:45 AM
I'm thinking that the investigators already know exactly what happened and who made the call to put those documents on her personal system.

Those classifified documents would have been coming from her Intel staff that would know the proper handling procedures.

There had to be some reluctance on the part of her staff to put those documents on her personal system, and I'm thinking that this is how the whole think came under scrutiny.

Someone was ordered to do it, and didn't like being order to do it and went to the IG. I wouldn't be surprised if it comes out that there were staff personnel that refused to do it, and there was an internal dust up over it.

I'm guessing they had to look for people that were willing to move those documents to an unauthorized system.

Something like that pisses the worker bees off, and they don't stop grumbling about it. I fully expect this to get bigger.

The Secretary of State does a lot of travel and they have secure systems that are mobile, so I don't really see the need to do something like that.

Unless, it was something so petty as she didn't like the secure systems and wanted to view everything on her personal device.

I'm hoping this comes out and it seems that she isn't getting any top cover from Obama.

Is there bad blood between the Obamas and the Clintons?

I'd say yes.

Rainmaker
08-13-2015, 01:09 PM
I'm thinking that the investigators already know exactly what happened and who made the call to put those documents on her personal system.

I'm hoping this comes out and it seems that she isn't getting any top cover from Obama.

Is there bad blood between the Obamas and the Clintons?

I'd say yes.

The Obama Crime Syndicate is taking down the Clinton Crime Syndicate in order clear the way for Uncle Joe's Campaign.CANKLES-JEB 2016!!!

Absinthe Anecdote
08-13-2015, 03:04 PM
The Obama Crime Syndicate is taking down the Clinton Crime Syndicate in order clear the way for Uncle Joe's Campaign.CANKLES-JEB 2016!!!

I do expect Biden to get into the race between now and December.

I'd love to hear reporters start asking Obama about the Clinton emails again.

TJMAC77SP
08-13-2015, 10:52 PM
I do expect Biden to get into the race between now and December.

I'd love to hear reporters start asking Obama about the Clinton emails again.

I saw some story in passing that Obama made a comment (with regard to the dem primaries) that he would rather see a spirited campaign. I read that as the first salvo leading to Joe entering the race.

Have you heard any reporter compare the cases of Clinton and Petraeus? I haven't heard that yet. Saw a meme on FB but nothing in the media. Could get interesting.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-13-2015, 11:06 PM
I saw some story in passing that Obama made a comment (with regard to the dem primaries) that he would rather see a spirited campaign. I read that as the first salvo leading to Joe entering the race.

Have you heard any reporter compare the cases of Clinton and Petraeus? I haven't heard that yet. Saw a meme on FB but nothing in the media. Could get interesting.

Trump has been saying that Petraeus was ruined for much less than what Hilliary did.

SomeRandomGuy
08-14-2015, 02:51 AM
I'm thinking that the investigators already know exactly what happened and who made the call to put those documents on her personal system.

Those classifified documents would have been coming from her Intel staff that would know the proper handling procedures.

There had to be some reluctance on the part of her staff to put those documents on her personal system, and I'm thinking that this is how the whole think came under scrutiny.

Someone was ordered to do it, and didn't like being order to do it and went to the IG. I wouldn't be surprised if it comes out that there were staff personnel that refused to do it, and there was an internal dust up over it.

I'm guessing they had to look for people that were willing to move those documents to an unauthorized system.

Something like that pisses the worker bees off, and they don't stop grumbling about it. I fully expect this to get bigger.

The Secretary of State does a lot of travel and they have secure systems that are mobile, so I don't really see the need to do something like that.

Unless, it was something so petty as she didn't like the secure systems and wanted to view everything on her personal device.

I'm hoping this comes out and it seems that she isn't getting any top cover from Obama.

Is there bad blood between the Obamas and the Clintons?

I'd say yes.

I'm not a tech genius but this whole thing seems odd to me. First of all a server is simply storage device that a computer or other device accesses. I assume we aren't after Hillary's personal emails sent to non government employees. If that is the case, doesn't the government's server have incoming and outgoing copies of all of these emails already? What exactly would be on Hillary's server that a government server wouldn't also have?

The classified thing is interesting to me. Government employees are well trained on classified markings and handling. In order for classified material to get on her server someone needed to remove the markings or else ignore them. Also, classified networks are generally completely separate from unclassified. Anyone who sent Hillary info would have known they were transferring fro classified to unclassified.

I find all of this really strange. I'm even channeling my inner rainmaker here and agreeing there is a bit of a political conspiracy here. It is all too convenient that information that the Dept. Of Justice already knew about would suddenly be investigated. It's almost like someone at the top said, yep go ahead and take a lok.

TJMAC77SP
08-14-2015, 03:45 AM
Trump has been saying that Petraeus was ruined for much less than what Hilliary did.

I don't know if I would quantify one offense or the other as worse but they certainly seem very similar (from what we know know) and Petraeus has a felony conviction on his record.

Bos Mutus
08-14-2015, 03:54 AM
I saw some story in passing that Obama made a comment (with regard to the dem primaries) that he would rather see a spirited campaign. I read that as the first salvo leading to Joe entering the race.

Have you heard any reporter compare the cases of Clinton and Petraeus? I haven't heard that yet. Saw a meme on FB but nothing in the media. Could get interesting.

I think Hillary is going down

Absinthe Anecdote
08-14-2015, 04:13 AM
I'm not a tech genius but this whole thing seems odd to me. First of all a server is simply storage device that a computer or other device accesses. I assume we aren't after Hillary's personal emails sent to non government employees. If that is the case, doesn't the government's server have incoming and outgoing copies of all of these emails already? What exactly would be on Hillary's server that a government server wouldn't also have?

The classified thing is interesting to me. Government employees are well trained on classified markings and handling. In order for classified material to get on her server someone needed to remove the markings or else ignore them. Also, classified networks are generally completely separate from unclassified. Anyone who sent Hillary info would have known they were transferring fro classified to unclassified.

I find all of this really strange. I'm even channeling my inner rainmaker here and agreeing there is a bit of a political conspiracy here. It is all too convenient that information that the Dept. Of Justice already knew about would suddenly be investigated. It's almost like someone at the top said, yep go ahead and take a lok.

It had to be intentional, and yes, it had to be transferred to an unclassified system. After the Timothy Manning debacle, using flash drives became much more difficult, but someone supporting the Secretary of State would have the ability to do it.

I'm sure there was an argument and some degree of push back until they found someone who was willing to do it.

I'm guessing there is a pissed off person who was pressured to do that and said no, then took this to the IG after she left State Dept.

You are right, if sent from a government computer there would be outbound records. But they would still need the destination server for a complete assessment.

They would want to know where those documents went after they hit her computer.

garhkal
08-14-2015, 05:20 AM
Trump has been saying that Petraeus was ruined for much less than what Hilliary did.

I've also known several Mil folk who got ruined for less. Such as the one guy in Bahrain who left his Secret computer up and running to go take a dump (while no one was in the office at the time) but came back to see 3 people all standing around it with peeved off looks (he got masted and lost a crow)..


I'm not a tech genius but this whole thing seems odd to me. First of all a server is simply storage device that a computer or other device accesses. I assume we aren't after Hillary's personal emails sent to non government employees. If that is the case, doesn't the government's server have incoming and outgoing copies of all of these emails already? What exactly would be on Hillary's server that a government server wouldn't also have?


Exactly. Heck, both the sender and receiver's server should have copies..

And apparently the server handed in BY Hillary is supposedly blank...
No surprises there from me.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-14-2015, 12:42 PM
At this point, what difference does it make? Besides, isn't it time we had a woman as President?

Mjölnir
08-14-2015, 01:22 PM
At this point, what difference does it make? Besides, isn't it time we had a woman as President?

I see what you did there. ;)

No issue with a female president if she is the best for the job.

UncaRastus
08-14-2015, 01:51 PM
You men know that a woman actually enjoys being in the kitchen, vacuuming the floors, wearing an apron, and such like.

Now don't be pushing your radical ideas in here. What if President Hoover hears of these statements? Why, I suppose that he might abolish our forum!

Now I am going on a march to Washington DC with the Bonus Army to collect on a promise. At least Hoover will respect that, anyhow.

garhkal
08-15-2015, 04:25 AM
The part that is making me laugh, is Fox says that the FBI reported that the Server had been wiped clean. BUT the AP today was saying that Some of the emails on her server were marked TS/SCI and was on about drone programs..

How could that be, if they were "as the fbi claimed" wiped clean?

Absinthe Anecdote
08-15-2015, 05:58 AM
The part that is making me laugh, is Fox says that the FBI reported that the Server had been wiped clean. BUT the AP today was saying that Some of the emails on her server were marked TS/SCI and was on about drone programs..

How could that be, if they were "as the fbi claimed" wiped clean?

Files can be recovered, even if someone uses one of those applications that does multiple passes on the hard drive.

All that does is make the process take longer.

About the only way you can ensure files will be unrecoverable is to physically destroy the hard drive. Even then, they can sometimes get pieces of files if enough sectors are intact.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-15-2015, 04:39 PM
I find this Washongton Post headline is interesting, in terms of editorial slant and what it means for her campaign.

Hillary Clinton is trying to make the e-mail controversy political. But, really, it isn’t.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/15/hillary-clinton-is-trying-to-make-the-e-mail-controversy-political-but-really-it-isnt/

If the WaPo isn't soft peddling this for Clinton, then I doubt they support her bid for president.

Here is another headline that is slanted against Clinton.

Clinton’s team went from nonchalant to nervous over e-mail controversy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-clintons-team-went-from-nonchalant-to-nervous-over-e-mail-controversy/2015/08/14/347f1066-405e-11e5-9561-4b3dc93e3b9a_story.html

i was just listening to her speak in Iowa and while the first three questions reporters asked her where about the emails, she tried to claim that voters weren't concerned with the issue.

Not sure if that tactic is going to work for her, the polls indicate democrat voters do care about it.

Especially since what I consider a Clinton friendly newspaper isn't backing off the issue.

I think she has pissed off the press of by limiting her encounters with reporters.

garhkal
08-16-2015, 03:58 AM
I think she has pissed off the press of by limiting her encounters with reporters.

We can hope!

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-16-2015, 02:30 PM
I hate to say it, but I believe the vast majority of DEM voters don't pay any attention to the news and are otherwise already convinced that she did nothing wrong and that this is just a made-up scandal by Republicans. Millions of low-information voters will flock to the polls to vote for her in the Primaries, then again in the General Election. Hillary will be our next President.

MikeKerriii
08-16-2015, 04:58 PM
I hate to say it, but I believe the vast majority of DEM voters don't pay any attention to the news and are otherwise already convinced that she did nothing wrong and that this is just a made-up scandal by Republicans. Millions of low-information voters will flock to the polls to vote for her in the Primaries, then again in the General Election. Hillary will be our next President.

I would think that low information voters would be the ones that think Fox is fair and balanced

And si far there is no "there" there in this scandal, So voters are treating this like so many other so called scandals the Republicans have been trying to sell since her hubby was elected. Like the boy who called wolf to often the ability of the Republicans to cry scandal has been reduced to uselessness, many will not take is seriously since they will first consider the source. IF something actually criminal is found that would change the situation.

TJMAC77SP
08-16-2015, 06:23 PM
I would think that low information voters would be the ones that think Fox is fair and balanced

And si far there is no "there" there in this scandal, So voters are treating this like so many other so called scandals the Republicans have been trying to sell since her hubby was elected. Like the boy who called wolf to often the ability of the Republicans to cry scandal has been reduced to uselessness, many will not take is seriously since they will first consider the source. IF something actually criminal is found that would change the situation.

Ya' kinda made Flaps point there.

".....the vast majority of DEM voters don't pay any attention to the news and are otherwise already convinced that she did nothing wrong and that this is just a made-up scandal by Republicans....."

I don't necessarily agree with his quantitative claims but you sure fit in the category he describes quite neatly.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-16-2015, 08:01 PM
The bottom line is that elections aren't decided by the Mike Kerriiis, Flappers, and Rainmakers.

Elections are decided by the moderate and sensible people in the middle, like me.

Mjölnir
08-16-2015, 08:06 PM
Elections are decided by the moderate and sensible people in the middle, like me.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/b4/92/a5/b492a5aa02f662cab659e1ec5e33b2b1.jpg

;)

Absinthe Anecdote
08-16-2015, 08:32 PM
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/b4/92/a5/b492a5aa02f662cab659e1ec5e33b2b1.jpg

;)

Shhh! Get that minion outta here, he'll scare the fish.

http://cdn.app.compendium.com/uploads/user/a4e707ba-e52c-41ea-b5df-e22be41ea981/4cc0b3b2-3aa5-4c38-8f3b-f31ea00b4f69/Image/cb046a7d17af72d905cea86816223577/yellowstone_cutthroat_brook_trout_photo_yellowston e_river.jpg

Mjölnir
08-16-2015, 10:55 PM
So voters are treating this like so many other so called scandals the Republicans have been trying to sell since her hubby was elected.

A lot of the mud that is thrown at the Clintons is pure politics, this has some legs:

-classified national security data was first stripped of its classification markings
-then transferred to an unclassified Dept. of State network
-then emailed to a private email server (not counting all the intermediate servers that the data must traverse in between.)


many will not take is seriously since they will first consider the source.

If FoxNews was the source I would agree with you. The source is the Inspector General (a non-partisan office) for the Director of National Intelligence (an Obama appointee.) It is very hard to argue that this is a creation of the Republicans (in fairness, they are beating the drums with this issue since the DoS, DoJ and Executive Branch were very dismissive of it early on).


IF something actually criminal is found that would change the situation.

I would suggest you read the IG report ... or at least the summary statement.


The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

Somebody played around with those messages, who? (do they still hold a clearance?) Who directed that action (government employee or private staffer)? What security person (if any) advised that it was a bad idea (if they did, who authorized this method of communicating classified data to a cabinet secretary? )

It may not be the most severe crime out there, but there are serious violations of security regulations and law. If it warrants prosecution will be up to a prosecutor to decide. An appropriate investigation would seem warranted to determine who actually did the message handling and who authorized the data handling plan.

MikeKerriii
08-17-2015, 01:02 AM
Ya' kinda made Flaps point there.

".....the vast majority of DEM voters don't pay any attention to the news and are otherwise already convinced that she did nothing wrong and that this is just a made-up scandal by Republicans....."

I don't necessarily agree with his quantitative claims but you sure fit in the category he describes quite neatly.The majority of Republican voters seem to be obsessed with imaginary news. I will worry about the e-mail server when someone finds something that Clinton did that was criminal. Until then I will treat it as just more Fox noise, just like the myriad of other made up scandals. How many "major scandals' have turned out to be nothing but political BS?

MikeKerriii
08-17-2015, 01:04 AM
The bottom line is that elections aren't decided by the Mike Kerriiis, Flappers, and Rainmakers.

Elections are decided by the moderate and sensible people in the middle, like me.

You are far to the right of center, A mainstream Republican is not anywhere close to the middle anymore, especially since the Democratic party is significantly larger than the Republican party

MikeKerriii
08-17-2015, 01:11 AM
A lot of the mud that is thrown at the Clintons is pure politics, this has some legs:

-classified national security data was first stripped of its classification markings
-then transferred to an unclassified Dept. of State network
-then emailed to a private email server (not counting all the intermediate servers that the data must traverse in between.)



If FoxNews was the source I would agree with you. The source is the Inspector General (a non-partisan office) for the Director of National Intelligence (an Obama appointee.) It is very hard to argue that this is a creation of the Republicans (in fairness, they are beating the drums with this issue since the DoS, DoJ and Executive Branch were very dismissive of it early on).



I would suggest you read the IG report ... or at least the summary statement.



Somebody played around with those messages, who? (do they still hold a clearance?) Who directed that action (government employee or private staffer)? What security person (if any) advised that it was a bad idea (if they did, who authorized this method of communicating classified data to a cabinet secretary? )

It may not be the most severe crime out there, but there are serious violations of security regulations and law. If it warrants prosecution will be up to a prosecutor to decide. An appropriate investigation would seem warranted to determine who actually did the message handling and who authorized the data handling plan.

Since you have worked with classified material you would know that the person that SENT the e-mail is the one looking for the axe. If Clinton manipulated the stuff she sent like that she s toast, trying to make a crime out of receiving that that unless it was marked as classified in the document will be hard to turn into a crime. The crime would be identical if she used her own or States unclassified e-mail system. We now tha somebody put classified messages on an an Unclassified system, we just have no idea who did so. Whomever did should be looking at jail time or a loss of security clearance at the least.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-17-2015, 01:32 AM
I would think that low information voters would be the ones that think Fox is fair and balanced

And si far there is no "there" there in this scandal, So voters are treating this like so many other so called scandals the Republicans have been trying to sell since her hubby was elected. Like the boy who called wolf to often the ability of the Republicans to cry scandal has been reduced to uselessness, many will not take is seriously since they will first consider the source. IF something actually criminal is found that would change the situation.

Have you actually sat down and watched Fox New, and if so, which show on Fox? Most people who bash Fox have never really watched it, or might have at best seen edited clips as shown on MSNBC to make them look bad. I think it's fair and balance, because it's the only network that actually allows opposing views to be presented. When I was overseas I watched Fox and MSNBC everyday, Yet MSNBC never, ever presented conservative viewpoints. It was 100% a conservative bashing session, with lie after lie spewed to their audience.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-17-2015, 01:38 AM
The bottom line is that elections aren't decided by the Mike Kerriiis, Flappers, and Rainmakers.

Elections are decided by the moderate and sensible people in the middle, like me.

I beg to differ. Moderate, sensible people did not RE-elect Obama. In fact, it's the Progressive's goal to get as many so-called "moderate and sensible" DEMS to vote, including those who aren't educated, or even citizens.

Mjölnir
08-17-2015, 01:58 AM
Since you have worked with classified material you would know that the person that SENT the e-mail is the one looking for the axe. If Clinton manipulated the stuff she sent like that she s toast, trying to make a crime out of receiving that that unless it was marked as classified in the document will be hard to turn into a crime. The crime would be identical if she used her own or States unclassified e-mail system. We now tha somebody put classified messages on an an Unclassified system, we just have no idea who did so. Whomever did should be looking at jail time or a loss of security clearance at the least.

Pretty much sums it up. Right now though it isn't known what was directed, who approved the plan etc. If it is important enough to give the Director of the CIA 2 yrs probation, we should probably try to figure out how this unfolded.

As I said above, if Secretary Clinton directed the plan that used this method, she is in part responsible. Now, I doubt that (even if she did) it would/could be proven. John Edwards' Chief of Staff was sufficiently part of the cult of personality that he took credit for getting Senator Edwards' mistress pregnant (this type of sycophant-ism exists on the right and left.) If she didn't, then who did. Also (as said before) Secretary Clinton is not stupid ... I have been in meetings with her (I was a fly on the wall but have heard her in action ) -- she is far from stupid. While not a crime, I find it hard to really believe that at some point, based on the descriptions of what I have seen was on her server that she would have not thought "hey, this shouldn't be out in the unclassified realm."

A big issue here is that someone authorized this plan which was borne out of personal convenience for her in her role as SECSTATE. At that level, she very well may not have been overly involved in the details, but no one now really knows because no one has been questioned about it. I don't think she was trying to manipulate classified data or get classified data easier, I think this was an effort to subvert federal records management laws ... LAWS. The Department of State and the National Archives were made aware that Secretary Clinton did not maintain a government email account in compliance with those laws and no one did anything about it to preserve the records of her tenure as the Secretary of State until the GOP started the whole Benghazi thing (a lot of smoke and drama ... but it got us to this point.) So there are potentially two different sets of laws getting broken: Federal Records Management & Handling of Classified Material. I think Secretary Clinton had the personal server more as an effort to circumvent her email traffic becoming part of the official record than as a matter of convenience (since you can pair / synch multiple email accounts to a single blackberry.) The mishandling of classified is likely not to get directly attached to her but it presents a bad optic for her.

Had Secretary Clinton been more forthcoming about the email server in 2013, this would be much less of an issue. The classified email issue was just leverage for the GOP and eventually as the story got legs for the DoJ to pressure Clinton to turn over the server. Now (even if it isn't) it looks like a cover-up of something ... it is not the crime that ruins people, it is the cover up.

MikeKerriii
08-17-2015, 02:26 AM
Have you actually sat down and watched Fox New, and if so, which show on Fox? Most people who bash Fox have never really watched it, or might have at best seen edited clips as shown on MSNBC to make them look bad. I think it's fair and balance, because it's the only network that actually allows opposing views to be presented. When I was overseas I watched Fox and MSNBC everyday, Yet MSNBC never, ever presented conservative viewpoints. It was 100% a conservative bashing session, with lie after lie spewed to their audience.

I Have watched Megan Kelly's show O'reily and the three stooges they have on in morning fairly often, And Fox seems to work very hard to find weak sisters to reresenthe opposing view when they bother to do so atall. O'Reilly just shouts people down confusing volume with intelligence and then hypes his silly books. MSNBC has a least one conservative host who does Fox have that is a not very conservative?

TJMAC77SP
08-17-2015, 03:27 AM
The majority of Republican voters seem to be obsessed with imaginary news. I will worry about the e-mail server when someone finds something that Clinton did that was criminal. Until then I will treat it as just more Fox noise, just like the myriad of other made up scandals. How many "major scandals' have turned out to be nothing but political BS?

".....the vast majority of DEM voters don't pay any attention....."

You just don't see it do you?

TJMAC77SP
08-17-2015, 03:31 AM
I ............who does Fox have that is a not very conservative?

Juan Williams and until recently Bob Beckel.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-17-2015, 03:40 AM
Juan Williams and until recently Bob Beckel.

Don't forget Alan Combs and Marc LaMont-Hill...

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-17-2015, 03:45 AM
Don't forget Alan Combs and Marc LaMont-Hill...

Kirsten Powers too

garhkal
08-17-2015, 03:46 AM
I would think that low information voters would be the ones that think Fox is fair and balanced

And si far there is no "there" there in this scandal, So voters are treating this like so many other so called scandals the Republicans have been trying to sell since her hubby was elected. Like the boy who called wolf to often the ability of the Republicans to cry scandal has been reduced to uselessness, many will not take is seriously since they will first consider the source. IF something actually criminal is found that would change the situation.

And you actually think the DOJ (with Obama's appointee, Lynch as its head) will actually DO anything should it be found that Hillary WAS lying about having classified data on the servers (or withholding it long enough to Erase all trace)?


The majority of Republican voters seem to be obsessed with imaginary news. I will worry about the e-mail server when someone finds something that Clinton did that was criminal. Until then I will treat it as just more Fox noise, just like the myriad of other made up scandals. How many "major scandals' have turned out to be nothing but political BS?

So you don't consider her lying to congress about the reason for Benghazi, or her Ineptness in handling it, a scandal?


Have you actually sat down and watched Fox New, and if so, which show on Fox? Most people who bash Fox have never really watched it, or might have at best seen edited clips as shown on MSNBC to make them look bad. I think it's fair and balance, because it's the only network that actually allows opposing views to be presented. When I was overseas I watched Fox and MSNBC everyday, Yet MSNBC never, ever presented conservative viewpoints. It was 100% a conservative bashing session, with lie after lie spewed to their audience.

Very true. I have lost count of the # of times, Fox has had democrat strategists, appointees, spokesmen etc on, to present the other POV. Can only count on 1 hand the # of times i remember seeing it happen on MSNBC.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-17-2015, 03:48 AM
I Have watched Megan Kelly's show O'reily and the three stooges they have on in morning fairly often, And Fox seems to work very hard to find weak sisters to reresenthe opposing view when they bother to do so atall. O'Reilly just shouts people down confusing volume with intelligence and then hypes his silly books. MSNBC has a least one conservative host who does Fox have that is a not very conservative?

Plenty of liberals on Fox. Also, Occasionally, O'Reilly raises his voice, but most of the time he's very calm and reasoned. You'd have to watch regularly to form an educated opinion, which you must admit you don't have.

By the way, those three female "stooges" are well educated attorneys. And your education is what?

Absinthe Anecdote
08-17-2015, 04:07 AM
O'Reilly can be a dickhead at times, but he is very articulate and well educated. I disagree with him on many issues, but I also find myself in agreement with him sometimes.

He isn't the ogre he is made out to be by people like Jon Stewart.

Rainmaker
08-17-2015, 12:32 PM
Faux news showed its true colors with the hatchet job they tried on Trump.

It's always dangerous when an entire political party gets in bed with a network owned by a foreigner.

TJMAC77SP
08-17-2015, 03:04 PM
Don't forget Alan Combs and Marc LaMont-Hill...

I don't know Lamont-Hill and forgot about Combs.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-17-2015, 03:16 PM
I don't know Lamont-Hill and forgot about Combs.

Lamont-Hill is a young black law professor from Columbia University. He always smiles and is very polite, but he always gets his point across a coherent manner.

He doesn't have a show on Fox, but is is a regular guest commentator.

I love hearing him go at it with O'Reilly and Hannity.

Lately I've been seeing him on CNN too.

MikeKerriii
08-17-2015, 07:13 PM
Trump has been saying that Petraeus was ruined for much less than what Hilliary did.

Once again proving the Trump doesn't have a clue.

MikeKerriii
08-17-2015, 07:17 PM
Plenty of liberals on Fox. Also, Occasionally, O'Reilly raises his voice, but most of the time he's very calm and reasoned. You'd have to watch regularly to form an educated opinion, which you must admit you don't have.

By the way, those three female "stooges" are well educated attorneys. And your education is what?

Those three stooges are paid to act like fools that is pretty damned obvious.

o'reily is polite as long as his guest doesn't dare to disagree

I watch O'ReiIlly for a few years until he got into idiocy like the War on Christmas and he went full on nut-bag with his Culture war BS.His lies abut being in a war zone are just icing on the cake.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-17-2015, 07:31 PM
Those three stooges are paid to act like fools that is pretty damned obvious.

o'reily is polite as long as his guest doesn't dare to disagree

I watch O'ReiIlly for a few years until he got into idiocy like the War on Christmas and he went full on nut-bag with his Culture war BS.His lies abut being in a war zone are just icing on the cake.

Why do you state they're stooges? They're educated and make well, thought out points. The war on Xmas is very real, or was. I remember walking into a Target several years ago and ALL of the xmas trees were labeled "holiday trees.". Why was that, because xmas was offensive? Would that EVER happen to, let's say, a Muslim religious symbol? Liberals would be up in arms! Anyway,I can't think of a more blatant marketplace attack on Christians than to rename their xmas trees "holiday trees." Thank God they stopped that practice, and thank God people like Bill O'really threw up the bs flag.

You know, progressive liberalism really is a disease, one which honest, hard working patriotic Ameicans need to erradicate.

SomeRandomGuy
08-17-2015, 07:38 PM
Why do you state they're stooges? They're educated and make well, thought out points. The war on Xmas is very real, or was. I remember walking into a Target several years ago and ALL of the xmas trees were labeled "holiday trees.". Why was that, because xmas was offensive? Would that EVER happen to, let's say, a Muslim religious symbol? Liberals would be up in arms! Anyway,I can't think of a more blatant marketplace attack on Christians than to rename their xmas trees "holiday trees." Thank God they stopped that practice, and thank God people like Bill O'really threw up the bs flag.

You know, progressive liberalism really is a disease, one which honest, hard working patriotic Ameicans need to erradicate.

The "Christmas Tree" is a religious symbol? About the only thing "Christian" about it is putting a star on top.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-17-2015, 07:50 PM
The "Christmas Tree" is a religious symbol? About the only thing "Christian" about it is putting a star on top.

And calling it a Christmas tree. The tradition of bringing evergreens into the house during the winter solstice was actually a pagan tradition that the Christians hijacked.

Heck, the entire holiday was hijacked by Christians in the first place.

Partying during the winter solstice was happening around the world, long before the Christians showed up.

Same thing with arrival of spring and Easter.

I say rock that winter holiday like it was intended, pagan style!

Deck the halls with boughs of holly, Fa la la la la la la la!

'Tis the season to be jolly, Fa la la la la la la la!
Don we now our gay apparel, Fa la la la la la la la!
Troll the ancient Yuletide carol, Fa la la la la la la la!

See the blazing yule before us, Fa la la la la la la la!
Strike the harp and join the chorus, Fa la la la la la la la!

Follow me in merry measure, Fa la la la la la la la!
While I tell of Yuletide treasure, Fa la la la la la la la!

Fast away the old year passes, Fa la la la la la la la!
Hail the new, ye lads and lasses, Fa la la la la la la la!
Sing we joyous all together! Fa la la la la la la la!
Heedless of the wind and weather, Fa la la la la la la la!

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-17-2015, 07:56 PM
The "Christmas Tree" is a religious symbol? About the only thing "Christian" about it is putting a star on top.

ok, whatever. WHY the name change to "holiday tree?". The reason is because select non-christians associated the tree with Christianity, NOT some pagan holiday. Therefor, it was a direct attack on Christianity. Target went along with the PC foolishness because they believed it to be a wise business decision, one they later regretted.

Bos Mutus
08-17-2015, 08:02 PM
Why do you state they're stooges? They're educated and make well, thought out points. The war on Xmas is very real, or was. I remember walking into a Target several years ago and ALL of the xmas trees were labeled "holiday trees.". Why was that, because xmas was offensive? Would that EVER happen to, let's say, a Muslim religious symbol? Liberals would be up in arms! Anyway,I can't think of a more blatant marketplace attack on Christians than to rename their xmas trees "holiday trees." Thank God they stopped that practice, and thank God people like Bill O'really threw up the bs flag.

Reminded me of a class Christian Rock song:

"Christmas Time, It's Christmas Time
It used to be the birthday of the man who saved our necks
But, now it stands for Santa Claus, you spell it with an 'X'
Christmas Time, It's Christmas Time"

~ Larry Norman

Absinthe Anecdote
08-17-2015, 08:43 PM
ok, whatever. WHY the name change to "holiday tree?". The reason is because select non-christians associated the tree with Christianity, NOT some pagan holiday. Therefor, it was a direct attack on Christianity. Target went along with the PC foolishness because they believed it to be a wise business decision, one they later regretted.

Does it bother you that swamps are now called wetlands, and the jungle is now the rain forest?

When you think about it, that is a way of using language to remove negative connotations.

Chistianity, Islam, the super heroes of Mount Olympus can all go in the same basket of myths and superstitions for all I care.

You call it a war on Christmas, but I call it humankind slowly moving past the superstitious and ridiculous worship of deities.

Jesus and a volcano God, same-same dude. Get that crap out of mainstream culture, and take the profit Muhammad with them.

If being PC helps sweep that nonsense into the dustbin of history, then I'm being PC.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-17-2015, 08:47 PM
Reminded me of a class Christian Rock song:

"Christmas Time, It's Christmas Time
It used to be the birthday of the man who saved our necks
But, now it stands for Santa Claus, you spell it with an 'X'
Christmas Time, It's Christmas Time"

~ Larry Norman

I can't stand Santa because it provides too many fat old perverts the opportunity to cozy up to kids at the mall.

We can get rid of his fat ass too.

Having a winter holiday is what smart people do.

MikeKerriii
08-18-2015, 01:38 AM
Why do you state they're stooges? They're educated and make well, thought out points. The war on Xmas is very real, or was. I remember walking into a Target several years ago and ALL of the xmas trees were labeled "holiday trees.". Why was that, because xmas was offensive? Would that EVER happen to, let's say, a Muslim religious symbol? Liberals would be up in arms! Anyway,I can't think of a more blatant marketplace attack on Christians than to rename their xmas trees "holiday trees." Thank God they stopped that practice, and thank God people like Bill O'really threw up the bs flag.

You know, progressive liberalism really is a disease, one which honest, hard working patriotic Ameicans need to erradicate.

They are stooges becasue they intentionally play the fool, being reasoned would get them fired

A lot of hard working patriotic Americans are progressive liberals. including people in the military. And if you plan on eradicating us you better bring a whole lot of firepower to it.

It is amazing how little inspiration it takes to get you fascists to start talking about the mass murder of those that don't agree with your politics. I'm assuming you were talking about Murder when you said eradicate, or don't you know what that word means

The Christmas teeter is a pagan symbol the Christian in Western Europe stole from their pagan neighbors. If you believe in the Norse goods it is a religious symbol, otherwise it is a symbol of the winters solstice and the holiday.

Mjölnir
08-18-2015, 02:04 AM
All,

Let's dial back from the personal insults on community members.

thank you

http://media.giphy.com/media/rvdUftzA8567u/giphy.gif

garhkal
08-18-2015, 05:28 AM
O'Reilly can be a dickhead at times, but he is very articulate and well educated. I disagree with him on many issues, but I also find myself in agreement with him sometimes.

He isn't the ogre he is made out to be by people like Jon Stewart.

I see him like i do Rush Libbaugh.. I may hate how he puts out info, but agree with him on more things than i disagree with him on.

MitchellJD1969
08-18-2015, 02:53 PM
They are stooges becasue they intentionally play the fool, being reasoned would get them fired

A lot of hard working patriotic Americans are progressive liberals. including people in the military. And if you plan on eradicating us you better bring a whole lot of firepower to it.

It is amazing how little inspiration it takes to get you fascists to start talking about the mass murder of those that don't agree with your politics. I'm assuming you were talking about Murder when you said eradicate, or don't you know what that word means

The Christmas teeter is a pagan symbol the Christian in Western Europe stole from their pagan neighbors. If you believe in the Norse goods it is a religious symbol, otherwise it is a symbol of the winters solstice and the holiday.

Progressives can be pretty fascist and nasty themselves, and as for mass murder the left has accounted for itself very well in the 20th century.

The progressives have all but pulled the dem party further to the left...center left politicians are very rare now. The blue dogs all but have been euthanized by their own party. (do you know what that word means mike?) So looking from the extreme left...anything on the right would be considered extreme, all the while setting the narrative of telling the "low information" voter how radical the right is.

Progressives are hell bent on removing religion from public discourse and display, but seem to want to plug the state in as a replacement for religion/god. I wonder if we will get a return to the old "god-king" crap like we had ages ago? History does seem to repeat itself.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-18-2015, 03:30 PM
The Christmas teeter is a pagan symbol the Christian in Western Europe stole from their pagan neighbors. If you believe in the Norse goods it is a religious symbol, otherwise it is a symbol of the winters solstice and the holiday.

Just let me handle this, I already had it covered, and here you show up making my team look stupid with your teeters and Norse goods.

You are either being lazy again, or talking about playground equipment and pickled herring.

Pay attention to detail or sit on the sidelines please.

We god hating atheists have an image to uphold.

Rainmaker
08-18-2015, 03:39 PM
Chistianity, Islam, the super heroes of Mount Olympus can all go in the same basket of myths and superstitions for all I care.

Jesus and a volcano God, same-same dude. Get that crap out of mainstream culture, and take the profit Muhammad with them.

Once again the religions you choose not to mock, are just as telling as the ones you do choose to mock.


f being PC helps sweep that nonsense into the dustbin of history, then I'm being PC.

Let's just call it what it is....You're not being PC. You're being kosher.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-18-2015, 04:03 PM
Once again the religions you choose not to mock, are just as telling as the ones you do choose to mock.



Let's just call it what it is....You're not being PC. You're being kosher.

Whatever, the reason I mock Christianity the loudest is because that is the religion I was born into.

It is the Christian mythology that I was indoctrinated with, and had to free myself from.

Naturally, it is the one I am most familiar with.

Judaism is just as ridiculous, as I'm sure you are aware it is the religion that spawned your SSPX version of Catholicism.

It is all the same bunch of voodoo to me.

retiredAFcivvy
08-18-2015, 09:42 PM
Reminded me of a class Christian Rock song:

"Christmas Time, It's Christmas Time
It used to be the birthday of the man who saved our necks
But, now it stands for Santa Claus, you spell it with an 'X'
Christmas Time, It's Christmas Time"

~ Larry Norman
While I'm not personally all for it; if you do some research the X in XMAS does have some Christian significance.

Bos Mutus
08-18-2015, 09:48 PM
While I'm not personally all for it; if you do some research the X in XMAS does have some Christian significance.

Maybe so...not all that important to me to research it...the comments just reminded me of that song.

...but, Larry Norman was awesome...maybe he still is, don't know if he's still around.

"...Why should the Devil have all the good music...Jesus is the Rock and he rolled by blues away!!" ~ Larry Norman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVyNnKsmdok

retiredAFcivvy
08-18-2015, 10:03 PM
Maybe so...not all that important to me to research it...the comments just reminded me of that song.

...but, Larry Norman was awesome...maybe he still is, don't know if he's still around.

"...Why should the Devil have all the good music...Jesus is the Rock and he rolled by blues away!!" ~ Larry Norman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVyNnKsmdok

I was not familiar with the name;but, according to WIKI he did pass away and sounds like he was a pioneer of Christian rock.

Bos Mutus
08-26-2015, 05:53 PM
I was not familiar with the name;but, according to WIKI he did pass away and sounds like he was a pioneer of Christian rock.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-NOZU2iPA8



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kppx4bzfAaE

Tum8
01-25-2016, 09:43 PM
When Hillary asked, in an email, to have the header dropped from a classified message and sent in the clear (unclassified message). This a very large No No and should have her security clearance pulled on the spot! This should also call into question SEN. Dianne Feinstein training on the handling of classified information when she came out in support of Hillary. SEN Feinstein I think is on the Intelligence Committee also with a top secret clearance.

garhkal
01-26-2016, 04:50 AM
With all that is now known, how can she NOT get indited is beyond me..

UncaRastus
01-26-2016, 03:19 PM
Garhkal, if it was any of us in here, we'd have been jailed a long time ago.

Money and politicians talks, bull droppings walks (into prison).