DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
The Forum
HTML https://thewiforum.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Worldwide topics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 19431--------------------------------------------------
Re: The impoverished Clintons are at it again
By: Linda Lou Date: March 10, 2015, 4:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This was not a bright move on her part. Will it bring her down?
Time will tell. But I don't this is her "Watergate" moment.
#Post#: 19433--------------------------------------------------
Re: The impoverished Clintons are at it again
By: Snickers Date: March 10, 2015, 4:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Linda Lou link=topic=1399.msg19431#msg19431
date=1426021860]
This was not a bright move on her part. Will it bring her down?
Time will tell. But I don't this is her "Watergate" moment.
[/quote]
This may very well be criminal. That could be her undoing.
#Post#: 19436--------------------------------------------------
Re: The impoverished Clintons are at it again
By: trollslayer Date: March 10, 2015, 5:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Snickers link=topic=1399.msg19433#msg19433
date=1426021935]
This may very well be criminal. That could be her undoing.
[/quote]
You could have poked her with a fork a long time ago. One
listen to her excuses today shows shes overdone. Cmon, does she
look like someone who does yoga? Do you believe she sent over
60,000 emails and not one of them had classified secrets?
Nobody is buying it.
#Post#: 19438--------------------------------------------------
Re: The impoverished Clintons are at it again
By: 12cows Date: March 10, 2015, 5:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=trollslayer link=topic=1399.msg19436#msg19436
date=1426024998]
You could have poked her with a fork a long time ago.
[/quote]
What?
#Post#: 19441--------------------------------------------------
Re: The impoverished Clintons are at it again
By: trollslayer Date: March 10, 2015, 7:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A few interesting comments on the Clinton presser from today.
Hillary's main line was "trust me". I'm sorry. Fool me
once.....
Of that 60,0000 or so emails she states some were to her
husband. Billary's spokesperson says Billary has written two
emails in his entire life and prefers to use Twitter, the best
way to communicate for those unable to put together more than
140 characters.
The Obama administration says they've turned over all documents
regarding Benghazi yet the private Clinton emails weren't part
of that package and in fact the emails from the date of the 911
attack are missing.
Hillary states she has deleted emails she deems "personal". Why
is it the blank time on the Richard Nixon tapes come to mind?
#Post#: 19444--------------------------------------------------
Re: The impoverished Clintons are at it again
By: Linda Lou Date: March 10, 2015, 7:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Seriously? You supported George W Bush and Scott Walker, and you
are insulting Bill Clinton's intelligence?
#Post#: 19445--------------------------------------------------
Re: The impoverished Clintons are at it again
By: trollslayer Date: March 10, 2015, 7:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Linda Lou link=topic=1399.msg19444#msg19444
date=1426033778]
Seriously? You supported George W Bush and Scott Walker, and you
are insulting Bill Clinton's intelligence?
[/quote]
You disagree with Walker and Bush. That makes them dumb? I
think Twitter is dumb.
#Post#: 19452--------------------------------------------------
Re: The impoverished Clintons are at it again
By: trollslayer Date: March 11, 2015, 7:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It appears the fact checkers at the AP are having a hard time
with Hillary's explanation
[quote]
WASHINGTON (AP) - How Hillary Rodham Clinton's statements about
her exclusive use of private email instead of a government
account as secretary of state compare with the known facts:
CLINTON: "Others had done it."
THE FACTS: Although email practices varied among her
predecessors, Clinton is the only secretary of state known to
have conducted all official unclassified government business on
a private email address. Years earlier, when emailing was not
the ubiquitous practice it is now among high officials, Colin
Powell used both a government and a private account. It's a
striking departure from the norm for top officials to rely
exclusively on private email for official business.
___
CLINTON: "I fully complied with every rule I was governed by."
THE FACTS: At the very least, Clinton appears to have violated
what the White House has called "very specific guidance" that
officials should use government email to conduct business.
Clinton provided no details about whether she had initially
consulted with the department or other government officials
before using the private email system. She did not answer
several questions about whether she sought any clearances before
she began relying exclusively on private emails for government
business.
Federal officials are allowed to communicate on private email
and are generally allowed to conduct government business in
those exchanges, but that ability is constrained, both by
federal regulations and by their supervisors.
Federal law during Clinton's tenure called for the archiving of
such private email records when used for government work, but
did not set out clear rules or punishments for violations until
rules were tightened in November. In 2011, when Clinton was
secretary, a cable from her office sent to all employees advised
them to avoid conducting any official business on their private
email accounts because of targeting by unspecified "online
adversaries."
___
CLINTON: "I did not email any classified material to anyone on
my email. There is no classified material."
THE FACTS: The assertion fits with the facts as known but skirts
the issue of exchanging information in a private account that,
while falling below the level of classified, is still sensitive.
The State Department and other national security agencies have
specified rules for the handling of such sensitive material,
which could affect national security, diplomatic and privacy
concerns, and may include material such as personnel, medical
and law enforcement data. In reviewing the 30,000 emails she
turned over to the State Department, officials are looking for
any security lapses concerning sensitive but unclassified
material that may have been disclosed.
___
CLINTON: "It had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded
by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches."
THE FACTS: While Clinton's server was physically guarded by the
Secret Service, she provided no evidence it hadn't been
compromised by hackers or foreign adversaries. She also didn't
detail who administered the email system, if it received
appropriate software security updates, or if it was monitored
routinely for unauthorized access.
Clinton also didn't answer whether the homebrew computer system
on her property had the same level of safeguards provided at
professional data facilities, such as regulated temperatures,
offsite backups, generators in case of power outages and
fire-suppression systems. It was unclear what, if any,
encryption software Clinton's server may have used to
communicate with U.S. government email accounts.
Recent high-profile breaches, including at Sony Pictures
Entertainment, have raised scrutiny on how well corporations and
private individuals protect their computer networks from attack.
___
CLINTON: "When I got to work as secretary of state, I opted for
convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed
by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to
carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails
instead of two. Looking back, it would've been better if I'd
simply used a second email account and carried a second phone,
but at the time, this didn't seem like an issue."
THE FACTS: If multiple devices were an inconvenience in the
past, they may be something of an obsession now. Clinton told an
event in California's Silicon Valley last month that she has an
iPad, a mini-iPad, an iPhone and a BlackBerry. "I'm like two
steps short of a hoarder," she said. She suggested she started
out in Washington with a BlackBerry but her devices grew in
number.
Smartphones were capable of multiple emails when she became
secretary; it's not clear whether the particular phone she used
then was permitted to do so under State Department rules.
___
Associated Press writer Calvin Woodward contributed to this
report.
[/quote]
#Post#: 19454--------------------------------------------------
Re: The impoverished Clintons are at it again
By: Linda Lou Date: March 11, 2015, 8:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This was a stupid move on her part. In this day and age she
should have known better...this could have lead to a serious
security breach.
But, as of yet, there's no proof that anything nefarious was
going on....no secret dealings, et. al.
#Post#: 19455--------------------------------------------------
Re: The impoverished Clintons are at it again
By: Notso Date: March 11, 2015, 9:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Linda Lou link=topic=1399.msg19454#msg19454
date=1426080151]
This was a stupid move on her part. In this day and age she
should have known better...this could have lead to a serious
security breach.
But, as of yet, there's no proof that anything nefarious was
going on....no secret dealings, et. al.
[/quote]
I'm actually surprised in this day and age that it was
convenient. I have no experience with .gov but I still have a
.mil (military) address. Every time I get an email from
anything other than .gov or .mil, I have to click through 3
different warnings before it will even download.
Course this would not affect her receiving mail but I would
assume the folks she was sending stuff to would be going through
something similar. Then again, sometimes you just put up with
hassles when dealing with the big boss.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page