Quid pro quo between FBI and State Department on behalf of Clinton?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-10-2016, 07:46 PM
Quid pro quo between FBI and State Department on behalf of Clinton?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/17/politics/h...d-pro-quo/

"A top official at the State Department repeatedly sought to have the FBI back down on classifying the contents of an email from Hillary Clinton's private email server, documents released Monday revealed.

According to notes from interviews conducted during an FBI investigation into Clinton's email practices, Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy personally tried to convince FBI officials that the email should be declassified. One interviewee described feeling “pressured” by another FBI official at Kennedy's request."

[Image: Ur7XVsP.gif?zoom=2]

Thoughts?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2016, 12:17 AM
RE: Quid pro quo between FBI and State Department on behalf of Clinton?
Storm in a teacup?

It's also been reported in the recent past that no unauthorised recipients were party to the emails, and there were no breaches of State security. I'm guessing that the GOP will milk this Hillary email stuff for all it's worth, and Drumpf's call for her to be jailed is truly ludicrous—considering his own shady history.

This is a detailed (but lengthy) report about Drumpf's alleged illegal activities and breaches of business statutes: The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet.

NB: Ad-blockers need disabling to read The Atlantic on-line. Dodgy

Pot, meet kettle....?

[Image: 636033287940377210-XXX-DONALD-TRUMP-TAJ-MAHAL.jpg]
Donald Trump celebrates the opening of the Trump Taj Mahal
in Atlantic City in 1990. A year later, it was bankrupt.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2016, 02:19 AM
RE: Quid pro quo between FBI and State Department on behalf of Clinton?
Bloody hell!

I had seen mention of some of those before but seeing it all listed like that brings the entire horror of this man right into your face.

Makes you want to scrub clean again.

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2016, 06:29 AM
RE: Quid pro quo between FBI and State Department on behalf of Clinton?
(18-10-2016 12:17 AM)SYZ Wrote:  Storm in a teacup?

It's also been reported in the recent past that no unauthorised recipients were party to the emails, and there were no breaches of State security. I'm guessing that the GOP will milk this Hillary email stuff for all it's worth, and Drumpf's call for her to be jailed is truly ludicrous—considering his own shady history.

You don't understand the problem.

.....

When I was in the service I handled classified message traffic every day - up to and including top secret.

The violation isn't who RECEIVES a message. It's the fact that it was sent over UNSECURE LINES -- that is, it was sent in unencrypted form - over transmission methods that could conceivably be intercepted.

When I was in - a violation of sending a top secret message over an unsecure line would likely result in prison time. They were fucking serious about this shit.

Clinton isn't.....

"No biggie -- I'm sure the Russians weren't paying attention"....

And - she's not off the hook for being the recipient -- she's as guilty as the sender - BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T REPORT IT...

...

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like onlinebiker's post
18-10-2016, 07:31 AM
RE: Quid pro quo between FBI and State Department on behalf of Clinton?
(18-10-2016 06:29 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(18-10-2016 12:17 AM)SYZ Wrote:  Storm in a teacup?

It's also been reported in the recent past that no unauthorised recipients were party to the emails, and there were no breaches of State security. I'm guessing that the GOP will milk this Hillary email stuff for all it's worth, and Drumpf's call for her to be jailed is truly ludicrous—considering his own shady history.

You don't understand the problem.

.....

When I was in the service I handled classified message traffic every day - up to and including top secret.

The violation isn't who RECEIVES a message. It's the fact that it was sent over UNSECURE LINES -- that is, it was sent in unencrypted form - over transmission methods that could conceivably be intercepted.

When I was in - a violation of sending a top secret message over an unsecure line would likely result in prison time. They were fucking serious about this shit.

Clinton isn't.....

"No biggie -- I'm sure the Russians weren't paying attention"....

And - she's not off the hook for being the recipient -- she's as guilty as the sender - BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T REPORT IT...

...

There’s that but this issue has to do with whitewashing the evidence.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2016, 08:09 AM
RE: Quid pro quo between FBI and State Department on behalf of Clinton?
I don't quite understand what this is about and I can't find anything that explains it. What would declassifying an email accomplish? Are they trying to make it look like the email was never classified to begin with?

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2016, 08:23 AM
RE: Quid pro quo between FBI and State Department on behalf of Clinton?
(18-10-2016 08:09 AM)Impulse Wrote:  I don't quite understand what this is about and I can't find anything that explains it. What would declassifying an email accomplish? Are they trying to make it look like the email was never classified to begin with?

I suspect it's all about perception.....

"Well gee -- it's no big deal -- AS THIS IS NO LONGER CLASSIFIED"....

Anything to get elected, eh???

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2016, 08:51 AM
RE: Quid pro quo between FBI and State Department on behalf of Clinton?
(18-10-2016 08:09 AM)Impulse Wrote:  I don't quite understand what this is about and I can't find anything that explains it. What would declassifying an email accomplish? Are they trying to make it look like the email was never classified to begin with?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...ls/504422/

It appears that by changing in arrears the classification from classified to non-classified would somehow make the transmission of it on a private server less damaging. Rewriting history as it were, in return the accusation is that the State Department would allow the FBI to station assets overseas, something that apparently the FBI would like to do and only the State Department can approve.

At the moment State hasn’t commented and the FBI flatly disavows such arrangement was ever contemplated.

I think I got that right.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2016, 09:12 AM
RE: Quid pro quo between FBI and State Department on behalf of Clinton?
(18-10-2016 08:51 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(18-10-2016 08:09 AM)Impulse Wrote:  I don't quite understand what this is about and I can't find anything that explains it. What would declassifying an email accomplish? Are they trying to make it look like the email was never classified to begin with?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...ls/504422/

It appears that by changing in arrears the classification from classified to non-classified would somehow make the transmission of it on a private server less damaging. Rewriting history as it were, in return the accusation is that the State Department would allow the FBI to station assets overseas, something that apparently the FBI would like to do and only the State Department can approve.

At the moment State hasn’t commented and the FBI flatly disavows such arrangement was ever contemplated.

I think I got that right.
Thanks. My browser isn't allowing me to view that link due to ad blocking. I disabled ad blocking for the site, but it still complains about ad blocking. Anyway, I get what you're saying and, if this has really gone on, then it's bad. I don't think it will hurt Clinton in the election at this point (because it's really more of the same email issue that is still unresolved), but it's bad from a legal standpoint. I don't believe for a second that Clinton is innocent in this mess. For a Secretary of State to not know what the "C" on emails means, is just absurd. So the question is how this will all turn out in the end. I can't say I'm excited about the prospect of a Tim Kaine Presidency assuming Clinton gets elected. Dodgy

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2016, 10:32 AM
RE: Quid pro quo between FBI and State Department on behalf of Clinton?
(18-10-2016 09:12 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(18-10-2016 08:51 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...ls/504422/

It appears that by changing in arrears the classification from classified to non-classified would somehow make the transmission of it on a private server less damaging. Rewriting history as it were, in return the accusation is that the State Department would allow the FBI to station assets overseas, something that apparently the FBI would like to do and only the State Department can approve.

At the moment State hasn’t commented and the FBI flatly disavows such arrangement was ever contemplated.

I think I got that right.
Thanks. My browser isn't allowing me to view that link due to ad blocking. I disabled ad blocking for the site, but it still complains about ad blocking. Anyway, I get what you're saying and, if this has really gone on, then it's bad. I don't think it will hurt Clinton in the election at this point (because it's really more of the same email issue that is still unresolved), but it's bad from a legal standpoint. I don't believe for a second that Clinton is innocent in this mess. For a Secretary of State to not know what the "C" on emails means, is just absurd. So the question is how this will all turn out in the end. I can't say I'm excited about the prospect of a Tim Kaine Presidency assuming Clinton gets elected. Dodgy

With Trump everything is pretty much out in the open, he’s too self absorbed to realize he is his own worst enemy.

With Clinton things are much more unclear. She is a political animal very adept at running the plausible deniability gauntlet, something that all successful politicians have been able to do (except for Nixon, he caught with his hands in the cookie jar). Come to think of it the two have similar political traits. Shocking Cunning and conniving. I know I’m uttering blasphemy but both of those traits can be used as positives to arrive at the desired outcome. The next four years will be telling.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: