Hillary Clinton is Done: part 4

[The Big Dog]

You had me until the false 'protip' and the veiled insult. Cut it out.

As for the rest. How does that invalidate the stories and the information? Are they biased, indeed they are. But they're no more, or less biased than the constant flow of 'information' you've been posting.

Perhaps you should flex those 'skeptic' muscles of your own in regards to your own links, and stories?

Your claim. Back it.

Fail.

Neera Tanden runs think progress and sits on the Clinton translation team.

David Brock runs media matters and correct the record which is directly coordinating with the Clinton campaign.

Next who took credit for supporting think progress and media matters? Protip, she is known for being corrupt.

Come on, use google. A skeptic would.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Oh, the new BOOM headshot. It's hard to keep up with what emotional self-declaration of victory substituted for an actual argument is in at the moment.

Oh dear . . .

Protip: You'll know when I've lost an argument by my declaration of victory.

 

[Shalamar]

Fail.

Neera Tanden runs think progress and sits on the Clinton translation team.

David Brock runs media matters and correct the record which is directly coordinating with the Clinton campaign.

Next who took credit for supporting think progress and media matters? Protip, she is known for being corrupt.

Come on, use google. A skeptic would.

That's nice. None of that is relevant to the story posted about the FBI investigating one of their twitter accounts.

Thus far, all stories about it point back to Thinkprogress. This does not mean that the story is false. The account in question was indeed dormant before it suddenly started posting favorably towards the Trump Campaign. This is checked, and is true.

What is 'up in the air' is if the FBI is investigating the incident or not. I'm a little skeptical of that, though it may be likely. In any case, the timing is suspicious, and with everything else going on, may be trying to influence the election. I would find this worrying. You of course, may not, but I do.

I'm not dismissive of a site just because I don't like the people. Skeptics don't do that. I check out the story that they've posted, and parts of that are worrying.

But go ahead. It's not your political stance, so dismiss it out of hand. Your biases are clouding your judgement.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Carelessness could be from clearly classified emails or documents that came through her server and were NOT known to the original investigation.
How many is enough to raise concern?
I'm sure 1 or 2 aren't enough. Perhaps a few dozen Top Secret would do, with obvious key words.
If it was just more of the same though I don 't think we would have heard about it.

We see Comey's letter and the White House officially defending Comey as a man of principle. Strange isn't it? The White House is playing it safe, defending him but then acting annoyed. To me, it seems they are posturing for history, knowing what is coming.

Maybe they have nothing significant. It's possible that field agents tried to work quietly on the case before realizing that accessing files based on the previous agreement with Huma or the new warrant for Weiner may not cover their scope, and a new one was needed. The letter then, was to fend of speculation about the additional warrant before it even started.

Remember that Huma not only worked for State, she also had roles in the Foundation and Teneo. Also note that Weiner is a sneaky bastard who was politically castrated and might like the illusion of power -holding onto his wife's classified documents and contacts.
So when she says she doesnt know how they got on his computer, I think she is telling the truth!

The question that it seems no one is willing to ask in all their speculation is, is how? From what we have been told so far, these emails are likely from Huma's Yahoo account, an account that she would forward those of her State Department emails she thought Hillary might find interesting for printing. Her State Department email is on a non-classified system, so were would any classified emails have come from? The only way they could have gotten there is via someone else sending that to her, and this would have happened with or without Hillary having a private server.

The idea that there is going to be classified material on this computer would appear to be little more than a HDS's wet-dream without any real regard to how computers and email systems actually work.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The question that it seems no one is willing to ask in all their speculation is, is how? From what we have been told so far, these emails are likely from Huma's Yahoo account, an account that she would forward those of her State Department emails she thought Hillary might find interesting for printing. Her State Department email is on a non-classified system, so were would any classified emails have come from? The only way they could have gotten there is via someone else sending that to her, and this would have happened with or without Hillary having a private server.

The idea that there is going to be classified material on this computer would appear to be little more than a HDS's wet-dream without any real regard to how computers and email systems actually work.

All it takes is someone writing something classified in an email. That is an extremely low bar.

 

[The Big Dog]

That's nice. None of that is relevant to the story posted about the FBI investigating one of their twitter accounts.

Thus far, all stories about it point back to Thinkprogress. This does not mean that the story is false. The account in question was indeed dormant before it suddenly started posting favorably towards the Trump Campaign. This is checked, and is true.

What is 'up in the air' is if the FBI is investigating the incident or not. I'm a little skeptical of that, though it may be likely. In any case, the timing is suspicious, and with everything else going on, may be trying to influence the election. I would find this worrying. You of course, may not, but I do.

I'm not dismissive of a site just because I don't like the people. Skeptics don't do that. I check out the story that they've posted, and parts of that are worrying.

But go ahead. It's not your political stance, so dismiss it out of hand. Your biases are clouding your judgement.

fail.

Hillary Clinton took credit for creating and supporting think progress and media matters:

Said then-Sen. Hillary Clinton at a progressive conference in Chicago in 2007. “We’re really putting together a network in the blogosphere, in a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._benghazi_story_the_liberal_group_forces.html

"Because if you want to discuss it, feel free to point out how they are propaganda outfits. Just declaring them propaganda outfits doesn't cut it." full throated propaganda PROVEN.

(baffled that you don't know who Tanden and Brock are).

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

fail.

Hillary Clinton took credit for creating and supporting think progress and media matters:



http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._benghazi_story_the_liberal_group_forces.html

"Because if you want to discuss it, feel free to point out how they are propaganda outfits. Just declaring them propaganda outfits doesn't cut it." full throated propaganda PROVEN.

(baffled that you don't know who Tanden and Brock are).

At the risk of wasting valuable Internets by asking, could you provide us a working definition of propaganda? A checklist of criteria or something? I'd like to know when I'm propagandized but lack your insight into this crucial element of our modern media.

 

[wareyin]

fail.

Hillary Clinton took credit for creating and supporting think progress and media matters:



http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._benghazi_story_the_liberal_group_forces.html

"Because if you want to discuss it, feel free to point out how they are propaganda outfits. Just declaring them propaganda outfits doesn't cut it." full throated propaganda PROVEN.

(baffled that you don't know who Tanden and Brock are).

Sorry The Big Dog but you can accept that your "sources" are biases alt-right crap that should be laughed off any skeptic board while you rail that the opposition is linking to a mildly left wing (read: "biased toward reality) source, or we can walk through each claim as linked and cited. In both cases, your partisan crap will be laughed out of the court, so which would you prefer?

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to correct name of poster. Please do not alter usernames to insult.

 

[The Big Dog]

At the risk of wasting valuable Internets by asking, could you provide us a working definition of propaganda? A checklist of criteria or something? I'd like to know when I'm propagandized but lack your insight into this crucial element of our modern media.

Buy a dictionary.

 

[wareyin]

Carelessness could be from clearly classified emails or documents that came through her server and were NOT known to the original investigation.
How many is enough to raise concern?
I'm sure 1 or 2 aren't enough. Perhaps a few dozen Top Secret would do, with obvious key words.
If it was just more of the same though I don 't think we would have heard about it.

We see Comey's letter and the White House officially defending Comey as a man of principle. Strange isn't it? The White House is playing it safe, defending him but then acting annoyed. To me, it seems they are posturing for history, knowing what is coming.

Maybe they have nothing significant. It's possible that field agents tried to work quietly on the case before realizing that accessing files based on the previous agreement with Huma or the new warrant for Weiner may not cover their scope, and a new one was needed. The letter then, was to fend of speculation about the additional warrant before it even started.

Remember that Huma not only worked for State, she also had roles in the Foundation and Teneo. Also note that Weiner is a sneaky bastard who was politically castrated and might like the illusion of power -holding onto his wife's classified documents and contacts.
So when she says she doesnt know how they got on his computer, I think she is telling the truth!

Ok, to start with "through her server" would implicate Clinton, how? I mean seriously, the idea that more than a couple emails in this "new" investigation weren't a duplicate of one in the original is flat out partisan stupid. However, even if you found a few, your claim is similar to blaming the city I was speeding in because they own the property. Explain how Clinton would be guilty because Huma Abedin may have mishandled over classified information about when Clinton was supposed to get to the Hamptons.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Any of you seen this?

http://truepundit.com/breaking-bomb...ldren-child-exploitation-pay-to-play-perjury/

Seriously? Do you even understand the idea of being skeptical?

Consider the following....

* The FBI had to get a search warrant to read these emails, how would the NYPD know what was in them without a Search Warrant?

* If the Detectives looking into it illegally opened and read the emails, why would they tell their superiors that they had broken the law and potentially destroyed any case they could get from them?

* Speaking to the media is already a potential breach of the law, as we have seen with Comey, holding a news conference is doubly so.

* Finally, the Article claims that "Chief" is second only to the Commissioner. Not true. The Chief of Staff is, but this Article refers to "a NYPD Chief" which is not the same thing. After the Chief of Staff is the First Deputy Commissioner, and then come a number of Deputy Commissioners, eighteen in total.Then we have the Chief of Department, again a singular role that would not be referred to as "a NYPD Chief", and under him 11 other Chiefs, each with a specific Job Title.

This is the level where we're likely find this "Chief," but since each is only responsible for their own Bureau, and since this would have to come under The Detective Bureau, there is only one Chief it could be, Chief of Detectives, Robert K. Boyce. Now since it wouldn't be possible to remain anonymous, and he's know that, what would be the point. As such I'm pretty sure that the "a NYPD Chief" is not Chief Robert K. Boyce, but rather a figment of the writer's imagination, along with the rest of the story.

Now there are a few more Cheifs lower, namely the Chief of Detectives for Manhattan, the Bronx, and Brooklyn, plus a number of Assistant and Deputy Chiefs, but since the article stated "a NYPD Chief, the department’s highest rank under Commissioner" it certainly isn't this far down the tree, and is most likely the result of the writer getting their knowledge of the NYPD from a TV show.

For the above reasons, and the fact it reads like a HDS checklist, the fact you even posted it makes pretty much anything you post on the subject pretty much as worthless as another poster who keeps using the likes of the NY Post and WND as his sources.

 

[PhantomWolf]

All it takes is someone writing something classified in an email. That is an extremely low bar.

At which point it is the writer that is the one that is in trouble, not the receiver, or the person that set up/owned the server.

And on top of that, the writer has to be aware that the information is classified, and send it deliberately.

Since there is no evidence of Hillary ever having done this, (the only classified materials she had on her server were sent to her, and either not classified at the time of sending, or in 3 occasions, were incorrectly labelled because the email didn't have the classified headers) why would you speculate that anything on this computer would be an issue for Hillary?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Buy a dictionary.

I'm not asking for the real definition but your operating definition. How do you know/tell/decide if something is propaganda or not?

 

[logger]

Seriously? Do you even understand the idea of being skeptical?

Consider the following....

* The FBI had to get a search warrant to read these emails, how would the NYPD know what was in them without a Search Warrant?

* If the Detectives looking into it illegally opened and read the emails, why would they tell their superiors that they had broken the law and potentially destroyed any case they could get from them?

* Speaking to the media is already a potential breach of the law, as we have seen with Comey, holding a news conference is doubly so.

* Finally, the Article claims that "Chief" is second only to the Commissioner. Not true. The Chief of Staff is, but this Article refers to "a NYPD Chief" which is not the same thing. After the Chief of Staff is the First Deputy Commissioner, and then come a number of Deputy Commissioners, eighteen in total.Then we have the Chief of Department, again a singular role that would not be referred to as "a NYPD Chief", and under him 11 other Chiefs, each with a specific Job Title.

This is the level where we're likely find this "Chief," but since each is only responsible for their own Bureau, and since this would have to come under The Detective Bureau, there is only one Chief it could be, Chief of Detectives, Robert K. Boyce. Now since it wouldn't be possible to remain anonymous, and he's know that, what would be the point. As such I'm pretty sure that the "a NYPD Chief" is not Chief Robert K. Boyce, but rather a figment of the writer's imagination, along with the rest of the story.

Now there are a few more Cheifs lower, namely the Chief of Detectives for Manhattan, the Bronx, and Brooklyn, plus a number of Assistant and Deputy Chiefs, but since the article stated "a NYPD Chief, the department’s highest rank under Commissioner" it certainly isn't this far down the tree, and is most likely the result of the writer getting their knowledge of the NYPD from a TV show.

For the above reasons, and the fact it reads like a HDS checklist, the fact you even posted it makes pretty much anything you post on the subject pretty much as worthless as another poster who keeps using the likes of the NY Post and WND as his sources.

A bit touchy aren't you, I understand why, but I only asked if people had seen it.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm not asking for the real definition but your operating definition. How do you know/tell/decide if something is propaganda or not?

Not asking for the "real" definition.

 

[PhantomWolf]

A bit touchy aren't you, I understand why, but I only asked if people had seen it.

If by "touchy" you mean sick of people posting moronic conspiracy theory drivel as if it has some merit, then you're probably right.

 

[Shalamar]

fail.

Thank you for giving me a TL;DR of your post.

Your fail is quite spectacular.

Hillary Clinton took credit for creating and supporting think progress and media matters:



http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._benghazi_story_the_liberal_group_forces.html

That's nice. Don't care. How does that relate to the story?

"Because if you want to discuss it, feel free to point out how they are propaganda outfits. Just declaring them propaganda outfits doesn't cut it." full throated propaganda PROVEN.

(baffled that you don't know who Tanden and Brock are).

Not proven. And don't care.

As a skeptic, I'm more concerned over the content of the story. Not on who wrote it.

I'm baffled by the fact that you can't address the content, instead you are merely dismissive because you don't like Hilllary Clinton. Too bad.

Get back to me when you actually can, and will comment on the content.

lolz face palm mic drop.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Not asking for the "real" definition.

Yes, because it won't help me understand how you decide if something is propaganda or not.

 

[The Big Dog]

Say, all that "mocking" you are doing?

You kinda forgot to try to address the fact that media matters and think progress are actual propaganda outfits.

Illusory superiority? You are half right.

Drops mic

Careful you don't trip over that mic. Because if you want to discuss it, feel free to point out how they are propaganda outfits. Just declaring them propaganda outfits doesn't cut it. Nor does your illusory superiority. Because it is illusory.

Lolz facepalm drops mic.

That's nice. Don't care. How does that relate to the story?

Well, that did not take long, now did it?

Illusory superiority.

protip: I also already explained why the propaganda story was ********, but after I expertly explain it you will declare that you "don't care."

 

[Shalamar]

Well, that did not take long, now did it?

Illusory superiority.

Poor Poor The Big Dog. You and your illusory Superiority. You've yet to prove that they are propaganda sites. They being progressive sites, does not make them propaganda. helped along by Hillary Clinton does not make them propaganda. And you've yet to actually talk about the story.

Lolz face palm drop mic.