|
Post by aboutwell on Dec 18, 2015 14:28:30 GMT -5
I was one of those who supported Clinton all the way through the caucus and primary process until the very end in '08... voting against Obama 6 times that year... Clinton 5... McCain once... Many of my friends and associates did so as well... but went back to Obama when McCain selected Palin fir his VP running mate... That's because you favor having someone else make every decision in your life for you. That, and the complete genocide of blacks. There is no other reason to vote Democrat. Hillary has never made a decision for me... she has made some on behalf of me... and you... and I believe Black lives matter... as much as White lives matter...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 18, 2015 15:07:51 GMT -5
If it's a choice between Hillary and Trump, I'm prepared to vote for Hillary. The continued destruction of the Democratic Party is necessary for the future of this country, and if Trump wins, the destruction of the Democrats stops. Only Hillary can continue doing to the Democratic Party what Obama has done. I think the potential damage Trump could do to the republican party pales in comparison to the damage Hillary could do to our country. At least with Trump there is an off chance of something good happening. If Hillary gets in, the concept of political parties may become irrelevant by the next election. As noted previously, Trump supports eminent domain abuse, assault weapons bans, and single payer health care. He'll do to the country what Hillary plans to do, and he'll do it under the GOP banner. THAT is what might make parties irrelevant by the next election. Not Hillary. If Hillary wins, expect down-ballot races to continue going GOP by wide margins as they have during the last 6 years.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 18, 2015 18:55:45 GMT -5
That's because you favor having someone else make every decision in your life for you. That, and the complete genocide of blacks. There is no other reason to vote Democrat. Hillary has never made a decision for me... she has made some on behalf of me... and you... and I believe Black lives matter... as much as White lives matter... That's because she's never been in the position. Democrats, however, live to make your decisions for you. That's what the EPA, IRS, FEC, FCC, ATF, Dept of Ed, ect are all there for, to make sure that you make the "correct" decisions in all aspects of your life. Democrats are absolutely sure that you are too stupid to live your life on your own, and are willing to use the force of government to make sure that you decide the way they want you to.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Dec 18, 2015 22:27:10 GMT -5
Hillary has never made a decision for me... she has made some on behalf of me... and you... and I believe Black lives matter... as much as White lives matter... That's because she's never been in the position. Democrats, however, live to make your decisions for you. That's what the EPA, IRS, FEC, FCC, ATF, Dept of Ed, ect are all there for, to make sure that you make the "correct" decisions in all aspects of your life. Democrats are absolutely sure that you are too stupid to live your life on your own, and are willing to use the force of government to make sure that you decide the way they want you to. Sounds kinda like why places have law enforcement... and other enforcement agencies... to be sure people obey the laws and other regulations made by/for that area... to benefit that area... And no, I don't have a problem with law enforcement...
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 18, 2015 23:36:08 GMT -5
That's because she's never been in the position. Democrats, however, live to make your decisions for you. That's what the EPA, IRS, FEC, FCC, ATF, Dept of Ed, ect are all there for, to make sure that you make the "correct" decisions in all aspects of your life. Democrats are absolutely sure that you are too stupid to live your life on your own, and are willing to use the force of government to make sure that you decide the way they want you to. Sounds kinda like why places have law enforcement... and other enforcement agencies... to be sure people obey the laws and other regulations made by/for that area... to benefit that area... And no, I don't have a problem with law enforcement... Sorry, no. Law enforcement only enforces the laws that are passed by a legislature of some type. It's the legislatures that Democrats use to force us into their twisted psychosis, and demand that we see green as purple, or 3 as 7.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2015 8:30:23 GMT -5
Hillary has never made a decision for me... she has made some on behalf of me... and you... and I believe Black lives matter... as much as White lives matter... That's because she's never been in the position. Democrats, however, live to make your decisions for you. That's what the EPA, IRS, FEC, FCC, ATF, Dept of Ed, ect are all there for, to make sure that you make the "correct" decisions in all aspects of your life. Democrats are absolutely sure that you are too stupid to live your life on your own, and are willing to use the force of government to make sure that you decide the way they want you to. I think broadcast tv, radio, and the use of devices like walkie-talkies and cb radios would have been very difficult without the FCC. Imagine radio stations choosing to outdo each other by making their signal stronger to the point that you can hear them over your intercom; imagine sloppy equipment that allows their signals to stray all over the place. The FCC like many of these agencies serve a vital role. However, I do agree that many are overstepping their bounds and need to be scaled back to their core missions.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 19, 2015 18:27:11 GMT -5
That's because she's never been in the position. Democrats, however, live to make your decisions for you. That's what the EPA, IRS, FEC, FCC, ATF, Dept of Ed, ect are all there for, to make sure that you make the "correct" decisions in all aspects of your life. Democrats are absolutely sure that you are too stupid to live your life on your own, and are willing to use the force of government to make sure that you decide the way they want you to. I think broadcast tv, radio, and the use of devices like walkie-talkies and cb radios would have been very difficult without the FCC. Imagine radio stations choosing to outdo each other by making their signal stronger to the point that you can hear them over your intercom; imagine sloppy equipment that allows their signals to stray all over the place. The FCC like many of these agencies serve a vital role. However, I do agree that many are overstepping their bounds and need to be scaled back to their core missions. It once did. And it may in the future. Right now, however, it's nothing but a weapon to be used against 'enemies' of the regime. Just like every other agency in the Federal government, it has no legitimate purpose at present.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Dec 19, 2015 19:47:30 GMT -5
I think broadcast tv, radio, and the use of devices like walkie-talkies and cb radios would have been very difficult without the FCC. Imagine radio stations choosing to outdo each other by making their signal stronger to the point that you can hear them over your intercom; imagine sloppy equipment that allows their signals to stray all over the place. The FCC like many of these agencies serve a vital role. However, I do agree that many are overstepping their bounds and need to be scaled back to their core missions. It once did. And it may in the future. Right now, however, it's nothing but a weapon to be used against 'enemies' of the regime. Just like every other agency in the Federal government, it has no legitimate purpose at present. Funny, Redleg...
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Jan 6, 2016 16:29:53 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2016 16:54:00 GMT -5
All depends on whether she knew for a fact that they were classified or not at the time... she says she didn't... maybe she should have known... but who am I... or you... to say?... there is no proof that she did anything intentionally wrong... no matter how hard you try... There are times when we get ticketed or in trouble for not knowing what the law, the rules, the protocol, or something else was at the time... I've been there myself... (never paid a fine)... and sometime we don't... (some people are reasonable)... you want her prosecuted... because you don't like her... which is fine... I don't... because I do... Fox News would like nothing more than to see her prosecuted... you know that... I think... Prepare yourself... she's likely to be your President for the next 4 or 8 years... Hilliary is not becoming president unless she rigs the election. She was only borderline electable in 2008. And she didn't have Benghazi, mishandling of classified info, and Obama's poor policies then. Hillary is not a person most people would want to have a beer with; she is just not likable enough. I think that you are going to be very disappointed come November.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 6, 2016 17:05:23 GMT -5
I guess we'll see how badly the Obama administration wants to screw the FBI and intelligence community. This president (nor his AG) doesn't strike me as someone who will much care that the rank and file at the FBI are 'in revolt' though. Yes, the evidence is overwhelming. I don't think Obama and Lynch GAF. Hillary's fans don't either. She could be bathing in the blood of virgins and they'd support her.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 6, 2016 20:44:33 GMT -5
It once did. And it may in the future. Right now, however, it's nothing but a weapon to be used against 'enemies' of the regime. Just like every other agency in the Federal government, it has no legitimate purpose at present. Funny, Redleg... No, not really. We now have a government that models itself on the Kremlin. The Puppet has now proposed to disarm the elderly, because "they can't take care of themselves", but of course, he and his family will have his security paid for by those of us he's anxious to sacrifice. The EPA is nothing more than a weapon to be used against private property, as is the Dept of the Interior.
|
|
|
Post by breakingbad on Jan 9, 2016 8:00:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 9, 2016 10:43:39 GMT -5
I think those discussing indictment are "spitting" in the wind. This AG will never indict a Democrat, unless that Democrat has annoyed The Puppet, or one of his owners. Especially Hillary, because they are terrified of what might come out in the discovery period of any trial. Besides, the State Dept has already violated several court orders, thereby showing that they have no more concern about the law than The Puppet does. What will anyone do if State simply refuses to turn over any more info? Or The Puppet and Lynch refuse to indict regardless of evidence?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 9, 2016 14:22:47 GMT -5
From the link: This is both a felony, and proof positive that she has done nothing but lie about how she handled classified material. Now the only question is whether or not the AG and Obama wish to abet this felony. My guess is the answer to that question is an unqualified yes.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 21, 2016 17:43:34 GMT -5
Well, the list of Hillary's crimes just keeps getting longer. Yahoo! News/GMASo it's no longer just Top Secret, it's information that's classified ABOVE Top Secret. If Hillary isn't criminally charged, our Department of Justice will have crossed the line from the pursuit of justice to serving the regime like a secret police force.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 21, 2016 23:09:56 GMT -5
Well, the list of Hillary's crimes just keeps getting longer. Yahoo! News/GMASo it's no longer just Top Secret, it's information that's classified ABOVE Top Secret. If Hillary isn't criminally charged, our Department of Justice will have crossed the line from the pursuit of justice to serving the regime like a secret police force. They did that the day The Puppet was immaculated. This just puts the proof in front of the American people.
|
|
|
Post by breakingbad on Jan 23, 2016 8:20:11 GMT -5
Well, the list of Hillary's crimes just keeps getting longer. Yahoo! News/GMASo it's no longer just Top Secret, it's information that's classified ABOVE Top Secret. If one didn't know this from the very beginning, they're an ignorant sycophant or an idiot. She was the Secretary of State! Of course she deals with information of this sensitivity. This is exactly why rules are in place that only secure government servers are to be used. It really doesn't matter whether they had the classification markings at the time. It's not the markings that make them sensitive, it's the content.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 23, 2016 13:41:55 GMT -5
So it's no longer just Top Secret, it's information that's classified ABOVE Top Secret. If Hillary isn't criminally charged, our Department of Justice will have crossed the line from the pursuit of justice to serving the regime like a secret police force. SAP isn't limited to military information. And it isn't "above" top secret, it's just different. I was in the classified world for a long time. If one holds, for example, a Top Secret clearance then one can access anything classified at Top Secret or less. Usually, you must Need To Know, a concept that says if you do not need to know about some data to do your job, then you don't get access. This gets murkier the higher up in an agency or corporation one goes; the case can be made that a senior manager needs to know about everything her or she might become involved with. SAP formalizes Need To Know. An SAP program can be of any classification, although in practice it's very rare for programs less than Top Secret, because it adds administrative cost that's hard to justify for lower classifications. What it says is that the program maintains a formal list (in the case of a contractor, he and the contracting authority agree on this list). On that list is the names of those granted access; everyone else, no matter what they may claim about Need To Know, is denied. If they can make a case that they need to know, they can petition to have their name added, but until that happens, they're not allowed to know. Whether Hillary broke the law when she asked for information to be declassified depends on precisely why she asked. If she did so for self-serving reasons only, she has violated various laws. If she did so because she thought the information no longer warranted classification (which does happen), that's subject to review. I don't believe even a Secretary can unilaterally make such a determination, but I haven't been in that world for more than a decade. A computer system and the facility in which it resides must be approved for handling classified data, or putting classified data on it is illegal. One can move classified data from place to place (I have done it), but the endpoints must be approved systems or facilities. And you have to be "read in" which means you have to sit through a tedious lecture about your responsibilities and the consequences of a mistake. I could not have worked from home during those years, even with an approved computer, because a private home is not (generally) approved for storage of classified material. The home of a top government official might be approved. Might. But it would have to be modified to support such. All that said, I seriously doubt she will be indicted. The administration is too political for that, and the FBI does not wish to be seen as attempting to influence the outcome of a Federal election. This is the kind of issue the voters will have to handle. And if the Republicans could find even a single candidate who isn't certifiable or extremist, there would be little doubt of the outcome of this election.
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Jan 23, 2016 18:19:47 GMT -5
True, SCI and SAP are not classification levels, but specific restrictions on who at that classification level (such as SECRET and TOP SECRET) may access that data. (BTW I have never heard of SCI information at the CONFIDENTIAL level.) Let's say there is an SCI restriction at the SECRET level on a program/project/etc. Not only would one require a need to know to access that SCI information, but one would also have to be read into the program in order to access it. Just because one has a SECRET security clearance, that doesn't mean that that person may access all SECRET information, as EY pointed out.
All computer systems used for processing/handling classified information must either be physically secure--unconnected to the unclassified world--(inside a vault or area that meets the classification level) or its disks and data media stored in a vault or safe when the computer is not running as a classified system. If the computer system is processing classified data and the system is not housed in a vault, etc., the area it's in must be secure when the classified data media is mounted on the system. Upon cessation of classified computing, in that case, the classified data media must be returned to the safe/vault and the computer system's memory must be wiped clean before it may be reconnected to the outside world or process unclassified data again.
For the US ARMY, the regulation that applies to classified computing is AR380-380, and similar regs are used for the other military departments and other gov't agencies.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 24, 2016 20:35:21 GMT -5
So it's no longer just Top Secret, it's information that's classified ABOVE Top Secret. If Hillary isn't criminally charged, our Department of Justice will have crossed the line from the pursuit of justice to serving the regime like a secret police force. SAP isn't limited to military information. And it isn't "above" top secret, it's just different. I was in the classified world for a long time. If one holds, for example, a Top Secret clearance then one can access anything classified at Top Secret or less. Usually, you must Need To Know, a concept that says if you do not need to know about some data to do your job, then you don't get access. This gets murkier the higher up in an agency or corporation one goes; the case can be made that a senior manager needs to know about everything her or she might become involved with. SAP formalizes Need To Know. An SAP program can be of any classification, although in practice it's very rare for programs less than Top Secret, because it adds administrative cost that's hard to justify for lower classifications. What it says is that the program maintains a formal list (in the case of a contractor, he and the contracting authority agree on this list). On that list is the names of those granted access; everyone else, no matter what they may claim about Need To Know, is denied. If they can make a case that they need to know, they can petition to have their name added, but until that happens, they're not allowed to know. Whether Hillary broke the law when she asked for information to be declassified depends on precisely why she asked. If she did so for self-serving reasons only, she has violated various laws. If she did so because she thought the information no longer warranted classification (which does happen), that's subject to review. I don't believe even a Secretary can unilaterally make such a determination, but I haven't been in that world for more than a decade. A computer system and the facility in which it resides must be approved for handling classified data, or putting classified data on it is illegal. One can move classified data from place to place (I have done it), but the endpoints must be approved systems or facilities. And you have to be "read in" which means you have to sit through a tedious lecture about your responsibilities and the consequences of a mistake. I could not have worked from home during those years, even with an approved computer, because a private home is not (generally) approved for storage of classified material. The home of a top government official might be approved. Might. But it would have to be modified to support such. All that said, I seriously doubt she will be indicted. The administration is too political for that, and the FBI does not wish to be seen as attempting to influence the outcome of a Federal election. This is the kind of issue the voters will have to handle. And if the Republicans could find even a single candidate who isn't certifiable or extremist, there would be little doubt of the outcome of this election. She and her underlings were transferring info from SIPR to NIPR. That's a crime, in and of itself. Regardless of what the info was. The very fact that it was on SIPR makes it classified TS.
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Jan 26, 2016 17:01:58 GMT -5
This LINK provides a good discussion of the issue regarding Hillary's emails that contain classified data. I realize that some will ignore this information, believing it is merely some right-wing smear attempt, however those people are entitled to demonstrate their ignorance on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by breakingbad on Jan 30, 2016 6:39:47 GMT -5
That's because she's never been in the position. Democrats, however, live to make your decisions for you. That's what the EPA, IRS, FEC, FCC, ATF, Dept of Ed, ect are all there for, to make sure that you make the "correct" decisions in all aspects of your life. Democrats are absolutely sure that you are too stupid to live your life on your own, and are willing to use the force of government to make sure that you decide the way they want you to. Sounds kinda like why places have law enforcement... and other enforcement agencies... to be sure people obey the laws and other regulations made by/for that area... to benefit that area... And no, I don't have a problem with law enforcement... You seem to be awfully silent lately on Slick Hilly's lawlessness. The State Department now says there are 22 emails that are so sensitive they can't even release redacted versions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2016 7:20:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by breakingbad on Jan 30, 2016 9:34:12 GMT -5
That was a paraphrase of a famous quote and not directed at you. If you took it personally, I guess that says a lot.
I will say this again, but I doubt it will make a difference to those who would excuse anything that Hillary would do.
It's the content, not the portion markings that makes information sensitive. That's why it should never have been on a private server. Any lesser individual would have been behind bars by now for this. And she should be held to a much higher standard than any lesser individual, not a lower one.
|
|