Hillary Clinton is Done: part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tony Stark said:
Then they told Comey, who told Congress the next day
Click to expand...

From NYT:

By mid-October, Comey learned investigators in the Weiner case might have found something that could have an impact on the now-closed probe into Hillary Clinton's private email server, according to one law enforcement official.
Click to expand...

So not the next day.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So the concept of 'every violation of a statute is not a criminal violation' went over your head?
Click to expand...

I think prosecutorial discretion carries extra weight after the malheur conspiracy case. The prosecution tried that one with probably the best case short of a confession. It seems the email case has even less.
 
This thread is moving so fast I think I need to bow out.

To Tony Stark: Seems the Charity Navigator has joined the rest. Analysis on the basis of reports and figures by people who know how to categorize reports and figures to make them look good.

No drill down to benefit analysis. When watchdogs become validators they become part of the problem.

It will not be long before the small donor will disappear. They will be irrelevant and poor. The rich elite will rule. When robotics and AI gets to the point that the elite do not need servants and middle men the rest of society becomes irrelevant also.

I doubt there are any elite on this forum. Maybe some posters are robots already. Maybe moist robots now, soon to be replaced by aluminum and silicon.

Anyhow, I must prepare for a knee replacement next week. The election might be over. The choice of president to swear in may not.
 
acbytesla said:
I don't doubt that there are emails that originated from that server. There is nothing unusual about that since Huma I'm sure was connected to it often and sent and received emails to her husband.
Click to expand...
Do we even know at this point whether there are actual emails on this device? If Huma was using it to read her mail, it would not necessarily have downloaded all those mails, or only made temporary copies of those emails she actually read.
 
PartSkeptic said:
This thread is moving so fast I think I need to bow out.

To Tony Stark: Seems the Charity Navigator has joined the rest. Analysis on the basis of reports and figures by people who know how to categorize reports and figures to make them look good.

No drill down to benefit analysis. When watchdogs become validators they become part of the problem.

It will not be long before the small donor will disappear. They will be irrelevant and poor. The rich elite will rule. When robotics and AI gets to the point that the elite do not need servants and middle men the rest of society becomes irrelevant also.

I doubt there are any elite on this forum. Maybe some posters are robots already. Maybe moist robots now, soon to be replaced by aluminum and silicon.

Anyhow, I must prepare for a knee replacement next week. The election might be over. The choice of president to swear in may not.
Click to expand...
Dude you worship an alleged multibillionaire who was born rich and who doesn't care about anyone but himself.
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
From NYT:



So not the next day.
Click to expand...
OK, I have read that he found out on Thursday.

Anyway, he waits until it is two weeks closer to the election to write his letter? That makes the he was worried about leaks theory even more unlikely and the he was trying to influence the election one more likely.
 
ddt said:
Do we even know at this point whether there are actual emails on this device? If Huma was using it to read her mail, it would not necessarily have downloaded all those mails, or only made temporary copies of those emails she actually read.
Click to expand...
Catherine Herridge of Fox news reported that Huma was using the laptop to back up contacts from her smart phone. Huma was also forwarding emails from the State Department to her private Yahoo account because they were easier to print that way. What she didn't realize was the computer was backing up her Yahoo emails along with her contacts.
 
Bogative said:
Catherine Herridge of Fox news reported that Huma was using the laptop to back up contacts from her smart phone. Huma was also forwarding emails from the State Department to her private Yahoo account because they were easier to print that way. What she didn't realize was the computer was backing up her Yahoo emails along with her contacts.
Click to expand...
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for reporting it.
 
I hope Democrats have learned a lesson. Never appoint Republicans to positions of power.
 
Bogative said:
Catherine Herridge of Fox news reported that Huma was using the laptop to back up contacts from her smart phone. Huma was also forwarding emails from the State Department to her private Yahoo account because they were easier to print that way. What she didn't realize was the computer was backing up her Yahoo emails along with her contacts.
Click to expand...

How stupid are people ? (don't answer, the question is rhetorical) :mad:

Firstly printing anything out is a security risk, that paper can end up anywhere - and it's a stupid waste of resources IMO

Secondly, forwarding anything from a government/business account to a private account is a clear breach of any normal security guidelines. Under certain circumstances I guess it could be justified as a one-off but to routinely act in this way is such a dunderheaded move.

In the course of my work I have access to client company confidential information. Not only do I not print off paper copies, I don't have any client related documentation or emails on my laptop - everything is on their servers which I access with remote sessions. I'm not savvy securitywise and even I know better than to forward work emails to private devices.
 
The Don said:
How stupid are people ? (don't answer, the question is rhetorical) :mad:

Firstly printing anything out is a security risk, that paper can end up anywhere - and it's a stupid waste of resources IMO

Secondly, forwarding anything from a government/business account to a private account is a clear breach of any normal security guidelines. Under certain circumstances I guess it could be justified as a one-off but to routinely act in this way is such a dunderheaded move.

In the course of my work I have access to client company confidential information. Not only do I not print off paper copies, I don't have any client related documentation or emails on my laptop - everything is on their servers which I access with remote sessions. I'm not savvy securitywise and even I know better than to forward work emails to private devices.
Click to expand...

But we're not talking about you, Don, we're talking about Hillary's main gal pal, Huma.
 
The Don said:
How stupid are people ? (don't answer, the question is rhetorical) :mad:

Firstly printing anything out is a security risk, that paper can end up anywhere - and it's a stupid waste of resources IMO

Secondly, forwarding anything from a government/business account to a private account is a clear breach of any normal security guidelines. Under certain circumstances I guess it could be justified as a one-off but to routinely act in this way is such a dunderheaded move.

In the course of my work I have access to client company confidential information. Not only do I not print off paper copies, I don't have any client related documentation or emails on my laptop - everything is on their servers which I access with remote sessions. I'm not savvy securitywise and even I know better than to forward work emails to private devices.
Click to expand...

The E-Mails were printed because Hillary prefers to read off paper than off the screen. This isn't surprising considering her age, but it would also allow for notes to be made on the emails, and it's easier on the eyes, and they can be read anywhere, rather than being tied to a computer.

As to security, the emails that were sent to the Yahoo account should not be classified as they were those sent to her non-classified State Department Account. There was no way for them to get lost either, as once printed they were sent to Hillary via a messenger pouch.

Of course it could have been avoided just by having the Government Computers easier to print from.
 
Bogative said:
Catherine Herridge of Fox news reported that Huma was using the laptop to back up contacts from her smart phone. Huma was also forwarding emails from the State Department to her private Yahoo account because they were easier to print that way. What she didn't realize was the computer was backing up her Yahoo emails along with her contacts.
Click to expand...

That's what I meant when I used the term "tendrils" before.

We'll just have to see where they lead.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So the concept of 'every violation of a statute is not a criminal violation' went over your head?
Click to expand...

Not sure why the need for condescension, but if your position is that "Hillary violated statutes but has been vindicated because intent could not be proved", then I'll agree except for the word vindicated.

I've read repeatedly, and heard from her own lips, that the FBI came to the conclusion she had done nothing wrong. I think that's untrue. They as much as said she was extremely careless and may have violated statutes. And that the decision not to prosecute was based partly on whether she showed simple negligence or gross negligence.

Anyway, let me again recommend the Opening Arguments podcast on the topic for a dive into the matter. I'm hoping flor a follow-up episode soon.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I've read repeatedly, and heard from her own lips, that the FBI came to the conclusion she had done nothing wrong. I think that's untrue. They as much as said she was extremely careless and may have violated statutes. And that the decision not to prosecute was based partly on whether she showed simple negligence or gross negligence.
Click to expand...

Then it seems to me that one should ask the same question of Comey. Putting aside the question of why he issued his highly irregular notification that the FBI was about to embark on a fishing expedition with no real evidence of any actual crime, one would have to regard his actions as extremely careless (because the notification cannot have failed to have some result on polling) and potentially in violation of statute, namely the Hatch Act. Was his negligence simple or gross, or did he deliberately try to influence the election result?

Dave
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Not sure why the need for condescension, but if your position is that "Hillary violated statutes but has been vindicated because intent could not be proved", then I'll agree except for the word vindicated.

I've read repeatedly, and heard from her own lips, that the FBI came to the conclusion she had done nothing wrong. I think that's untrue. They as much as said she was extremely careless and may have violated statutes. And that the decision not to prosecute was based partly on whether she showed simple negligence or gross negligence.

Anyway, let me again recommend the Opening Arguments podcast on the topic for a dive into the matter. I'm hoping flor a follow-up episode soon.
Click to expand...

What has become interesting with recent revelations is that it wasn't the FBI that said the hi-lited, but Comey.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Putting aside the question of why he issued his highly irregular notification that the FBI was about to embark on a fishing expedition...
Click to expand...

Running with the metaphor...

If one is going on a fishing expedition, is it not reasonable to go where there's a good chance of finding fish?

If the original investigation was to find out what, if any, classified documents were on Hillary's private email server, and if they might have been hacked, it's not unreasonable to track down how far those documents may have propagated. And if discovered on other unsecured computers, whether those unsecured computers may have been compromised by enemies, foreign or domestic.

It appears that tendrils reached from Hillary's private email into Weiner's laptop. It will turn out to be either a treasure trove or a dead end.

Let's find out!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom