What's worse? Sexual predation or compromising National Security?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-10-2016, 03:16 PM
RE: What's worse? Sexual predation or compromising National Security?
(31-10-2016 03:14 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  
(28-10-2016 04:45 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  My guess - neither is a problem to party loyalists.

They will vote for their lizard regardless.

......Except for one small thing: The investigation into the emails determined that they did not, in fact, compromise national security.

Not exactly true. She did have classified information on her server. The FBI director said they didn't know if her server had been hacked or not. But the possibility is there.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2016, 03:33 PM
RE: What's worse? Sexual predation or compromising National Security?
Thing is, I did exactly what Hillary did when I was busy . I left both business and personal mails on my server, I allowed people who worked for me to do the same. Granted, I had nothing to do with government classified items. But, the competition would have loved to see all those emails.

This was a few years ago, just like Hillary.

It hasn't been that long since private servers were quite safe, all that hacking shit is quite a recent phenomenon.

She should have been told not to use a private server. Apparently she wasn't. Others in politics did the same at the time.

It looks a lot more careless in the current hacking environment than it did just a few years ago.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Dom's post
31-10-2016, 03:43 PM
RE: What's worse? Sexual predation or compromising National Security?
(31-10-2016 03:33 PM)Dom Wrote:  It hasn't been that long since private servers were quite safe, all that hacking shit is quite a recent phenomenon.

They still are the safest from hacking with a competent system administrator.

(31-10-2016 03:16 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(31-10-2016 03:14 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  ......Except for one small thing: The investigation into the emails determined that they did not, in fact, compromise national security.

Not exactly true. She did have classified information on her server. The FBI director said they didn't know if her server had been hacked or not. But the possibility is there.

Ah, the old "I don't know if he beats his wife or not so the possibility is there" tactic. I've used it many times. Hardly ever works.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
31-10-2016, 03:49 PM
RE: What's worse? Sexual predation or compromising National Security?
(31-10-2016 03:33 PM)Dom Wrote:  Others in politics did the same at the time.

That is a point that doesn't seem to get much coverage. It doesn't make it right, but it isn't like she did something way out of the ordinary either.

One thing I have not seen is whether or not she had decent security measures in place. It's not like government servers are magically more secure than private servers.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
31-10-2016, 03:55 PM (This post was last modified: 31-10-2016 04:05 PM by Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver.)
RE: What's worse? Sexual predation or compromising National Security?
(31-10-2016 03:16 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(31-10-2016 03:14 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  ......Except for one small thing: The investigation into the emails determined that they did not, in fact, compromise national security.

Not exactly true. She did have classified information on her server. The FBI director said they didn't know if her server had been hacked or not. But the possibility is there.

Which again goes back to the original conclusion on the part of the FBI that, while Clinton was careless, that's not the same thing as compromising national security. That kind of carelessness happens a lot in defense contracts; in general it just results in a written reprimand, though habitual offenses will get you terminated. Usually it's easier this way as the more fuss you make about these kinds of breaches, the more likely it is to get noticed by an adverse party.

True story: in the 1980s, Lockheed simply fired an Burbank employee for presenting classified drawings of a 'black' aircraft to a woman he was enamored with as opposed to prosecuting him for a breach of national security. A trial would have attracted a lot of publicity and would have almost guaranteed investigation by Soviet agents. The airplane in question remained a closely guarded secret until it was declassified by the USAF in 1989.

And, to be honest, you would really have to go out of your way to compromise national security by careless placement of private emails on a classified server.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2016, 04:08 PM
RE: What's worse? Sexual predation or compromising National Security?
(31-10-2016 03:55 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  
(31-10-2016 03:16 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Not exactly true. She did have classified information on her server. The FBI director said they didn't know if her server had been hacked or not. But the possibility is there.

Which again goes back to the original conclusion on the part of the FBI that, while Clinton was careless, that's not the same thing as compromising national security. That kind of carelessness happens a lot in defense contracts; in general it just results in a written reprimand, though habitual offenses will get you terminated. Usually it's easier this way as the more fuss you make about these kinds of breaches, the more likely it is to get noticed by an adverse party.

And, to be honest, you would really have to go out of your way to compromise national security by careless placement of private emails on a classified server.
I'm going to have to tell you something....

You don't know what you're talking about.


Have you ever had to handle tens of thousands of pieces of classified information?????

I have.

.....

I don't know where you came up with the idea that you get a freebie in a "written reprimand"....

In the reality I worked in -- if you compromised classified information - you were looking at far more serious consequences than a written reprimand.... You'd be LUCKY (depending on the severity of the compromise) if you didn't do prison time....

And --- It makes NO difference if there is direct or indirect evidence that the compromised information has been intercepted by a foreign government --- it's always assumed that it HAS been intercepted, when the compromise is discovered......


It's pretty much a zero tolerance kind of thing....

They don't fuck around with it --- unless you're "royalty"....

Then I guess you get to do whatever the fuck you want....

Right???

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

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
31-10-2016, 04:20 PM
RE: What's worse? Sexual predation or compromising National Security?
(31-10-2016 04:08 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(31-10-2016 03:55 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Which again goes back to the original conclusion on the part of the FBI that, while Clinton was careless, that's not the same thing as compromising national security. That kind of carelessness happens a lot in defense contracts; in general it just results in a written reprimand, though habitual offenses will get you terminated. Usually it's easier this way as the more fuss you make about these kinds of breaches, the more likely it is to get noticed by an adverse party.

And, to be honest, you would really have to go out of your way to compromise national security by careless placement of private emails on a classified server.
I'm going to have to tell you something....

You don't know what you're talking about.


Have you ever had to handle tens of thousands of pieces of classified information?????

I have.

.....

I don't know where you came up with the idea that you get a freebie in a "written reprimand"....

In the reality I worked in -- if you compromised classified information - you were looking at far more serious consequences than a written reprimand.... You'd be LUCKY (depending on the severity of the compromise) if you didn't do prison time....

And --- It makes NO difference if there is direct or indirect evidence that the compromised information has been intercepted by a foreign government --- it's always assumed that it HAS been intercepted, when the compromise is discovered......


It's pretty much a zero tolerance kind of thing....

They don't fuck around with it --- unless you're "royalty"....

Then I guess you get to do whatever the fuck you want....

Right???

And you go to a trial with that and you know what happens?

You attract a whole lot of attention.

Trials get covered by the press. That attracts the attention of foreign intelligence services who begin to press into these areas with further probes.

The first rule of handing classified information is to make sure as few people know about a program or information as possible. And this has to be clamped down in an almost vicious manner.

But you are still going to get leaks from time to time.

And no, you don't 'get off the hook for it'; they do an internal investigation to determine what exactly was compromised. Small slips, yea you'd get a reprimand, possibly terminated. Again if a breach occurs, it's best to keep it as quiet as possible. It would require a major, and/or determined to be intentional, breach in data in order to incite prosecution.

Yeah, I can use a 'return' key as well.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2016, 05:19 PM
RE: What's worse? Sexual predation or compromising National Security?
(28-10-2016 04:45 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  My guess - neither is a problem to party loyalists.

They will vote for their lizard regardless.

Gee, what gives you that impression?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2016, 10:07 AM
RE: What's worse? Sexual predation or compromising National Security?
Clinton never "compromised" national security.
You obviously never read the emails in question, or even anything about them. They were talking about drones in Pakistan. Something that was also being discussed on the FRONT PAGE of the New York Times. They were classified as "confidential" ... the LOWEST form of classified. There also was NEVER any intent seen, implied, or demonstrated to disclose classified anything ... it's the reason Comey said no reasonable prosecutor would charge a case like this, last July.

The facts are often inconvenient.
Running a sham foundation, a sham university, a pattern of sexual assault, a pattern of repeated discrimination in his property business, and lying to contractors and investors, leaving them in the lurch repeatedly (bankruptcies) is FAR FAR worse. It's not even close.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
02-11-2016, 10:18 AM
RE: What's worse? Sexual predation or compromising National Security?
I'll say it again: this question is a bad either/or criticism of the current political situation because only one candidate encompasses both traits while the implication of the phrasing is that each trait is mutually exclusive to one candidate.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tartarus Sauce's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: