I’ve made the statement that it could have been- and that’s not a controversial statement. I don’t think it was, but I don’t know and neither do you.
“‘What me?’ charade”? Dude, stop fucking playing with me. You’re coming at my character as if I’m being disingenuous, duplicitous or both. How about this, stay the fuck off commenting on my posts and I’ll do the same with you. This is the second time I’ve had to get ignorant with you. You make assumptions and claim that I say things that you can’t pull quotes that I’ve written that back you up.
I quoted you precisely, literally cutting and pasting. The “what me” quotes isn’t a quote of you, its to signify that “what me” is a common phrase used to explain a sort of faux innocent act. Its a fairly common usage.
Nor am I playing. The comments I quoted are a continual insinuation that Hillary leaked classified information, that have no basis in fact. You are free to post such insinuations here, but you will be challenged and called out on them. Getting angry and cursing at people for doing so isn’t going to stop that.
PFFFFfffttt!!
GOPers fib all the time. So do democrats. But you are right, most folk don’t like liars. I do wish that would extend to politicians as well. From my several decades of watching their behavior (since Nixon found the Alger Hiss tapes in a pumpkin) politicians are inveterate liars,… big and small lies, all the time.
Jump to conclusions much? I guess there is a chance you know more about this than what has been released publicly. If you are going to claim you do, please provide some indication of how.
There is absolutely no reason to assume that her private server was extremely vulnerable. When you say something like “all her emails travelled from the State Department network over the internet to her server, then back over the internet again to her mobile devices” you are either intentionally or unintentionally suggesting that those emails travelled in an insecure manner. There are several ways that assumption can be wrong.
She may very well have had a dedicated link between State and the server. Even if she didn’t, she very well could have had an encrypted VPN connection. Do we assume that the server was just plugged in to her DSL or cable modem? There’s no reason to even assume the server was even connected to the public internet. It could have easily been configured to send directly to a counterpart server at State.
I’m not saying that for sure these precautions were taken because I don’t know. That’s my point though, neither do you.
As I said previously, you are insinuating that she has leaked classified information. Both pieces I quoted are part and parcel of that insinuation…building your case, if you will.
I am not trying to take any high moral ground because of you getting angry at having me point out what you are doing. I quoted you faithfully to show precisely what you are doing. If having your own words quoted back to you offends you, then perhaps this isn’t the best forum for you, or perhaps you should be a bit more precise or careful with what you type.
And you attempts at intimidation, “not going to stop the heat from coming” is feeble, and very misplaced here. The goal here is to engage in meaningful dialogue on current issues, not to threaten people because they disagree with you. This is the second time you have hijacked a topical conversation in an attempt to turn into a personal confrontation.
Finally, the “bullshit” I came at you was your own quotes.
You and Breitbart’s out of context quote-mining from back in March (just before you created your account here at TPM) is simply not accurate. Here is the actual preceding quote:
““We know our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals”
Do you deny that is what she said before she mentions the RNC set up servers for secret White House email account accounts, from which over 22 million emails were potentially lost, and never turned over for archival purposes… unlike Clinton’s emails which were retained and turned over?
Yep, as I previously stated, not a single thing you posted is accurate.
I appreciate the concern over the issue of possible release of classified information. There is a very well-established precedent for what’s been going on, but at the time HRC assumed the office, there were also known security issues with the State Department email system. This doesn’t indicate malfeasance to me, but a politico who’s spent most of her career being beaten up by her opponents taking steps for protecting herself.
She had a 60-day policy set up for deleting emails from the server, which is standard security and liability practice for most organizations worth their salt. This tells me the system was being properly administered, not ‘wiped’ or ‘cleaned’. I’m also not too worried about the classified designation, as the practice has grown to the point of ridiculousness, preventing effective oversight of our government.
I do appreciate the tone and nature of your posts and thanks for the discussion.
If I remember correctly the cable-news bobbleheads thought that was humorous. All Democrats are held to a standard but no standard exists for GOPers. They do and say what they want and these bobbleheads will not challenge them for fear they won’t return their program. Sad state of affairs for viewers looking for facts.
“This is second hand info and I expect it to be treated as such and to be lumped in with all other evidence and given its proper weight.”
Right, let’s lump “second hand info” in with “all the other evidence”. Huh?
“all the other”?
“evidence”?
“I have friend- liberal Dem- who works at State and according to her, there are not an insignificant amount of people at state who are holding their breath because…”
Do you realize just how lame this reads? You’ve really got to do better.
I thought exactly the same thing. Her snark comes across as defensive. As Josh notes, the media are Pavolvian-ly conditioned to assume the worst about the Clintons (and vice versa), and that kind of deflection is like gasoline on a fire. No one believes that HC doesn’t know what “wiping a server” means, c’mon!
What is rhetorically brilliant about Trump is that when questioned about something he can’t answer (or answer well), he simply flips the script and goes on the attack. Think about his “tired of all this political correctness” when challenged about his sexist comments. Rhetorically brilliant and the audience ate it up (even if it was bs).
Clinton should have responded, “No one cares about this political witch hunt…this is all a distraction that you’ve fallen for. The outrage is that the Republicans in Congress can spend millions picking through trivial emails, but they can’t afford to fund women’s health, spur job growth by repairing our crumbling infrastructure!..” etc.
This is what folks love about Trump: “Honey badger just don’t care” about trying to play by your rules. Clinton has got to figure out a way to thread the needle of aggressively changing the topic, while not sounding completely disqualified to be President (as Trump does).
Note that the commentator you are responding to joined in April, has made a grand total of 12 comments (3 in this thread) and every single one of them anti-Clinton.
Somewhere there is a bridge missing it’s live-under resident.
