Reply With Quote
yeah, Newsmax is reputable.
If she doesn't go to prison then something is seruouu screwed up with the justice system
http://observer.com/2015/08/the-coun...or-needed-now/
yeah, Newsmax is reputable.
the Newsmax article is based on reporting in NYT and WaPo, fwiw
You can't really get rid of the data unless you format the drive and reload it with dummy data and format it again and reload it with dummy data countless times. Once that's been done I believe the data is really gone.
Good job Shilkary. You crook.
Btw if her drives are SSD she is out of luck. SSDs ovewrite data in layers so absolutely EVERYTHING can be recovered.
Be smart don't use ssds for sensitive data
emails!
Acorn!
Benghazi!
Planned Parenthood!
Vince Foster!
Christmas cards!
Govern? no, we're Repugs, we inflame our (out-of-control base) base non-stop with lies, slander, fabricated outrage.
The last remaining Spurstalk deflector shilling away.
All the Repugs do is deflect from governing.
TSA is approaching TBin butt-hurted-ness and in stalking The Great Boutons
All the Repugs do is deflect from governing.
TSA is approaching TB
you spam every single thread it's hard not to on you daily
I post wherever and whatever I want, not the same as TB
you spam every single thread it's hard not to on you daily
Where there's smoke, there's fire. Shillary has been a scandal a minute for most of her adult life and it's finally catching up to her.
It's hilarious to see libcucks like you spin everything to defend a career politician with almost every single trait you loathe in neocons and establishment Republicans. She's corrupt, a warmonger, a condescending prick, an "evil 1%-er," and an overall loathsome human being. But all of that stops mattering when there's a (D) next to her name.
The scandals-a-minute have all been VRWC/Repug fabrications for 30 years, DEFLECTIONS, slander, witch hunting, creating "troublesome" "controversies" when only the VRWC/Repug create the smoke and never find any fire. aka, the politics of personal destruction.
Do you know how bat crazy you sound? I would not be surprised if you have no friends IRL, tbh. You will take this crazy lib agenda with you to the grave with nothing to show for.
bat crazy a from rigthwingnut weirdo is huge compliment. Thanks!
Not a rightwing nut weirdo. I expected this deflection, though.
Just checking to see if any laws were broken yet.
Any updates on that front?
I think deleting the data in itself was a crime
Don't be silly. If chump can name a Republican that deleted an email it makes it OK.
dubya/ head's WH deleted Ms of emails, Repugs shrugged.
Rick Perry automatically deletes all staffer emails after seven days
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...er-seven-days#
Jeb Bush and Scott Walker among 2016 hopefuls who have used private emails
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...private-emails
Because that's the exact same thing as Hillary sending emails with top secret satellite photos to China.
lol, wut?
AP Story Demonstrates Weak Claims Against Hillary On E-mails
In an AP Story sourced by Intelligence Community officials, the extreme weakness of the claims against Hillary Clinton are well explained. AP writes:
The two emails on Hillary Rodham Clinton's private server that an auditor deemed "top secret" include a discussion of a news article detailing a U.S. drone operation and a separate conversation that could point back to highly classified material in an improper manner or merely reflect information collected independently, U.S. officials who have reviewed the correspondence told The Associated Press. [My emphasis]
The idea that an email discussing a news article could be deemed "Top Secret" is ludicrous of course. But the IC is nothing if not ludicrous when it comes to classification issues.
The story continues:
The sourcing of the information in the emails could have significant political implications as the 2016 presidential campaign heats up [. . .]
The officials who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity work in intelligence and other agencies.
They wouldn't detail the contents of the emails because of ongoing questions about classification level.Clinton did not transmit the sensitive information herself, they said, and nothing in the emails she received makes clear reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing. [My emphasis]
Let's review this again -
(1) Clinton did not transmit the sensitive information herself and
(2) nothing in the emails she received makes clear reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing.
Frankly, this puts Clinton completely in the clear. This story SHOULD be over as far as Hillary is concerned. IS that true for other State personnel? I think so. But there can be no doubt as to Clinton.
The AP story continues:
The drone exchange, the officials said, begins with a copy of a news article that discusses the CIA drone program that targets terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere. While a secret program, it is well-known and often reported on. The copy makes reference to classified information, and a Clinton adviser follows up by dancing around a top secret in a way that could possibly be inferred as confirmation, they said. Several officials, however, described this claim as tenuous.
This passage is unclear in this phrase - "The copy makes reference to classified information." This could mean, as I think it does, the copy from the news article. In which case, huh? A news article can be TOP SECRET? Just ludicrous. If "copy" means something else, I have no idea what it could be.
The story continues:
[A] second email reviewed by Charles McCullough, the intelligence community inspector general, appears more suspect. Nothing in the message is "lifted" from classified do ents, the officials said, though they differed on where the information in it was sourced. Some said it improperly points back to highly classified material, while others countered that it was a classic case of what the government calls "parallel reporting" — different people knowing the same thing through different means.
This seems to be a part of the interagency food fight where the IC thinks everything is classified, even though everyone knows from various sources and normal reasonable people say that's nonsense. And again, none of this implicates Hillary.
The rest of the article is a basic retelling of the controversy.
If this AP story is accurate, it's pretty clear there is no there there in this story.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2015/8...ary-On-E-mails
Benghazi!
Vince Foster murdered (in fact the Clintons murdered LOTS of people all through the 80s and 90s)!
ACORN!
Benghazi!
Planned Parenthood!
Christmas card list!
Benghazi!
Bill Clinton shooting at OBL only to distract from impeachment! ( Repugs then take office and totally ignore OBL and Muslim terrorism )
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
