The Official Hillary Campaign Machine

#1,102
#1,102
Septic said:
It wasn't an implication - he said there was a "serious leak of classified info."

I hadn't heard that. The fact that she had stuff on a personal server is egregious, I don't disagree. But I hadn't heard the we "knew" of a "serious leak". Those are two different things.

As far as her intentionally or accidentally doing it - I suppose that's debatable. Depending on where one sits it dictate what one sees. Personally, I don't believe that kind of opsec stupidity (intentional or not) should be eligible to hold a secret clearance.
Click to expand...

Releasing information to a person without a clearance is a "serious leak."

And if this lawyer dude doesn't have a clearance, it certainly applies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,103
#1,103
Septic said:
It wasn't an implication - he said there was a "serious leak of classified info."

I hadn't heard that. The fact that she had stuff on a personal server is egregious, I don't disagree. But I hadn't heard the we "knew" of a "serious leak". Those are two different things.

As far as her intentionally or accidentally doing it - I suppose that's debatable. Depending on where one sits it dictate what one sees. Personally, I don't believe that kind of opsec stupidity (intentional or not) should be eligible to hold a secret clearance.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of Sydney Blumenthal? He's an adviser to Hillary, not paid by the US Gov't, and has no security clearance.

Wouldn't you say he has no business knowing about classified info?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,104
#1,104
lawgator1 said:
I've not made up my mind who I am voting for, have you?

I could easily see boycotting this one in disgust.
Click to expand...

Not at all.

The Ds are running Hillary and Bernie - Right now thats a negative on both

The Rs are running a handful that are slightly better (at best) right now. With the others being almost as bad as the 2 above.
 
#1,113
#1,113
Grand Vol said:
Releasing information to a person without a clearance is a "serious leak."

And if this lawyer dude doesn't have a clearance, it certainly applies.
Click to expand...

If that's what you consider a "serious leak", what would you call it if her server was infiltrated by a hostile foreign agency? A super duper ultra serious leak?
 
#1,115
#1,115
Septic said:
If that's what you consider a "serious leak", what would you call it if her server was infiltrated by a hostile foreign agency? A super duper ultra serious leak?
Click to expand...

Mishandling and passing classified information is mishandling and passing classified information!

If Hillary ever once sent this in an email "leaving for Chicago today at 2pm on AF1 with the President, call you when I land" to her daughter, husband, or anyone else without proper clearance she leaked classified information. She mishandled it by sending it on an unsecured system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,116
#1,116
Septic said:
If that's what you consider a "serious leak", what would you call it if her server was infiltrated by a hostile foreign agency? A super duper ultra serious leak?
Click to expand...

She is just as culpable having it on a personal server and no other individual got access to it as she would be if the entire Eastern Hemisphere got a hold of it. That's not my opinion, its a fact upon the current regulation on the handling of classified or sensitive material.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,117
#1,117
hog88 said:
Mishandling and passing classified information is mishandling and passing classified information!

If Hillary ever once sent this in an email "leaving for Chicago today at 2pm on AF1 with the President, call you when I land" to her daughter, husband, or anyone else without proper clearance she leaked classified information. She mishandled it by sending it on an unsecured system.
Click to expand...

I haven't disagreed with that premise at all. I also agree that she should lose any security clearance she currently holds. She should lose two weeks pay and be busted down to E-1.

My point was - the statement that was made is that "we know about serious leaks". I simply asked what "serious leak" do we know about?
 
#1,118
#1,118
lawgator1 said:
All of you have made up your mind that the mere fact of having a private server is disqualifying because it is at least possible that it would end up with classified or sensitive material on it. I get it, that's your right to feel that way.

I especially enjoyed all the threads calling for criminal charges when Colin Powell did it.

Oh, wait....
Click to expand...

It SHOULD be disqualifying. And Colin Powell should be similarly disembowled.

However, the last I heard, he isn't running for POTUS (thank God), but if he did a similar thing when he was in the uniform, he should go to prison right along with Cankles.
 
Last edited:
#1,119
#1,119
BearCat204 said:
She is just as culpable having it on a personal server and no other individual got access to it as she would be if the entire Eastern Hemisphere got a hold of it. That's not my opinion, its a fact upon the current regulation on the handling of classified or sensitive material.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

You guys are making arguments against things I'm not denying.
 
#1,120
#1,120
theFallGuy said:
Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remarked that she loves Snapchat because “Those messages disappear all by themselves” at the Iowa Democratic Wing Ding Dinner on Friday.

Hillary said, “By the way, you may have seen that I recently launched a Snapchat account. I love it. I love it. Those messages disappear all by themselves.”


what an arrogant POS
Click to expand...

I'll betcha a steak dinner that those messages that "disappear" can be found by the person(s) with the right technology. For anyone to believe that they disappear forever is deluding themselves. They exist somewhere, in some form, and will someday be retrievable. That is what technology does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,122
#1,122
Septic said:
I haven't disagreed with that premise at all. I also agree that she should lose any security clearance she currently holds. She should lose two weeks pay and be busted down to E-1.

My point was - the statement that was made is that "we know about serious leaks". I simply asked what "serious leak" do we know about?
Click to expand...

She turned over a server that held sensitive or classified info to her attorney that didn't have clearance. That's a serious leak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,123
#1,123
Septic said:
I haven't disagreed with that premise at all. I also agree that she should lose any security clearance she currently holds. She should lose two weeks pay and be busted down to E-1.

My point was - the statement that was made is that "we know about serious leaks". I simply asked what "serious leak" do we know about?
Click to expand...

Cyber security experts have determined that in contrast to Clinton’s assurances that her server was secure there were numerous security lapses found. Thus, giving China, Russia and other non friendly nations the opportunity to hack into her non secure server.
 
#1,124
#1,124
Septic said:
If that's what you consider a "serious leak", what would you call it if her server was infiltrated by a hostile foreign agency? A super duper ultra serious leak?
Click to expand...

I would say that if the SecState's personal server that had been used in lieu of a secure government server had been infiltrated by hostile governments/factions, it would be a leak of the same proportion of a rainstorm that had a man named Noah building a boat.
 
#1,125
#1,125
AirVol said:
Cyber security experts have determined that in contrast to Clinton’s assurances that her server was secure there were numerous security lapses found. Thus, giving China, Russia and other non friendly nations the opportunity to hack into her non secure server.
Click to expand...

Right, no disagreements.

The opportunity for "serious leaks" was there.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top