US Vice President used private email account for sensitive info and got hacked

[AntonChigurh]

2 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

She didn't send highly sensitive information. Out of over 60,000 emails, only 110 were found to have been classified at the time. Almost all of the classified stuff was only classified after the fact. She can't look into the future and see what someone's going to tag as classified.

 

According to a Republican, who did his best to sabotage her campaign, "no charges are appropriate in this case." That just says it all.

If they were so unimportant and "unclassified", why did she feel the need to scrub the server clean? Hypothetically, even if she wasn't guilty, her actions represent that of a guilty person's.

 

 

A Republican? I seriously doubt that. He was appointed by Obama. It'd be a cold day in hell before anyone in his administration would appoint someone who didn't agree with them. Also, call me crazy, but when he said "No charges are appropriate", I feel that Shillary and her spooks made his life a living hell until he finally let her off the hook. I'll admit, no concrete evidence for this one, but they have a history of doing this.

[ivan134]

3 minutes ago, suits said:

Looking for it, theres 11 hours to scrub through.

 

lots of quotes you can find in the news articles. She admitted to being responsible, she argued it wasn't illegal what she did.

Lol sure buddy

[Sakkura]

Just now, ace_cheaply said:

It does matter.  Hillary as able to scrub hers clean when asked for the contents.  Pence can't do that.  Hillary lied about sending classified information.  Both the lying and the sending were crimes.  Pence didn't do that.  How is it irrelevant?  Pence had a lawful account hacked illegally. Hillary illegally sent information over a server that only she had access to, and deleted it when subpeonaed then lied about the deletion (only work related emails, her lawyers went through every email, and no classified information.)  

 

As I said when I first denoted the difference, if you don't see it I can't help you.

A Republican found her to have committed no crimes. I don't care what you've deluded yourself into thinking, there's clearly no evidence to charge her.

 

Pence was doing the same thing Clinton did, sending sensitive government information on private email servers. Then he went and chanted that she should be locked up for it.

[ace_cheaply]

3 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

It is a problem when you're in violation of the Logan act and/or sharing government secrets with agents of foreign governments. It's also a problem when you lie about it.

The Logan act that has literally never seen someone convicted in two hundred years of existence because it violates the first amendment?  That Logan act.

[ace_cheaply]

2 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

A Republican found her to have committed no crimes. I don't care what you've deluded yourself into thinking, there's clearly no evidence to charge her.

 

Pence was doing the same thing Clinton did, sending sensitive government information on private email servers. Then he went and chanted that she should be locked up for it.

The repulican that said we can't charge for negligence because there was no intent?  Yeah, that's just as ridiculous as crap spewed from democrats, and crap stinks no matter whose ass it comes out of.  The entire point of negligence is that it doesn't require intent.

[AntonChigurh]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

Lol sure buddy

Excuse me for a moment here

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/politifact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/

 

"Clinton has said she used the email setup for convenience, so she would only have to use one device for email" - Trusted News Source

 

"Lol, sure buddy" - Some guy on the internet

[ivan134]

3 minutes ago, N1ghtshade said:

Excuse me for a moment here

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/politifact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/

 

"Clinton has said she used the email setup for convenience, so she would only have to use one device for email" - Trusted News Source

 

"Lol, sure buddy" - Some guy on the internet

What are you even responding to? Lol

[stconquest]

1 minute ago, Memories4K said:

Well why is Russia benefiting with Trump in office a bad thing?
I don't understand, we make trade deals with many different nations, what is wrong with the deal?
I'm not understanding.

I understand your point of view and entirely agree with it.  It comes down to a conflict of interest.  Rex Tillerson is the Secretary of State.  Trump has shady business dealings all over the world, including in Russia.  When these officials start to benefit personally in an unlawful manner, it should be more clear.

 

Just keep watching.  Trump is dumb.  More will surface as time goes on.

[AntonChigurh]

Just now, ivan134 said:

What are you even responding to? Lol

@suits said that there was 11 hours of footage to scrub through, and that her admitting it was in the footage

 

You said "Yeah lol sure whatever she didn't say nuffin"

 

So, I was responding to your ridiculous statement that she didn't admit to using the server

[Sakkura]

Just now, N1ghtshade said:

If they were so unimportant and "unclassified", why did she feel the need to scrub the server clean? Hypothetically, even if she wasn't guilty, her actions represent that of a guilty person's.

 

 

A Republican? I seriously doubt that. He was appointed by Obama. It'd be a cold day in hell before anyone in his administration would appoint someone who didn't agree with them. Also, call me crazy, but when he said "No charges are appropriate", I feel that Shillary and her spooks made his life a living hell until he finally let her off the hook. I'll admit, no concrete evidence for this one, but they have a history of doing this.

She did not scrub the server clean. There were 110 emails with information that was classified at the time.

 

You have to bear in mind this was also her private email, and she has every right to delete those. Now if you can prove her deleted emails were in fact containing classified information relating to her job, then go ahead. Prove it; so far, even the Republican heading the FBI was unable to find any proof against her.

 

James Comey has been a registered Republican for many years. He even said so in a congressional hearing about the email controversy.

[ivan134]

3 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

It does matter.  Hillary as able to scrub hers clean when asked for the contents.  Pence can't do that.  Hillary lied about sending classified information.  Both the lying and the sending were crimes.  Pence didn't do that.  How is it irrelevant?  Pence had a lawful account hacked illegally. Hillary illegally sent information over a server that only she had access to, and deleted it when subpeonaed then lied about the deletion (only work related emails, her lawyers went through every email, and no classified information.)  

 

As I said when I first denoted the difference, if you don't see it I can't help you.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

 

It's pretty annoying that I have to keep defending someone I hate so much. Hillary has so many legitimate issues and conservatives always choose to focus on the made up boogeyman.

[ace_cheaply]

2 minutes ago, stconquest said:

 Trump has shady business dealings all over the world, including in Russia. 

 

Source needed.

[Sakkura]

6 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

The Logan act that has literally never seen someone convicted in two hundred years of existence because it violates the first amendment?  That Logan act.

It has never been found to violate the constitution. The fact that it's so rarely used just demonstrates how exceptionally corrupt the Trump administration is.

4 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

The repulican that said we can't charge for negligence because there was no intent?  Yeah, that's just as ridiculous as crap spewed from democrats, and crap stinks no matter whose ass it comes out of.  The entire point of negligence is that it doesn't require intent.

Negligence is not criminal in this matter. That's the point. She broke the law, but not in a criminal manner. In other words, it has more in common with a parking violation than with shoplifting or high treason.

[stconquest]

Just now, ace_cheaply said:

Source needed.

No, it is not.  You just have not been paying attention.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-22/deutsche-bank-s-reworking-a-big-trump-loan-as-inauguration-nears

[Sakkura]

1 minute ago, ace_cheaply said:

Source needed.

Tell Trump to release his tax returns then.

[Memories4K]

2 minutes ago, stconquest said:

I understand your point of view and entirely agree with it.  It comes down to a conflict of interest.  Rex Tillerson is the Secretary of State.  Trump has shady business dealings all over the world, including in Russia.  When these officials start to benefit personally in an unlawful manner, it should be more clear.

 

Just keep watching.  Trump is dumb.  More will surface as time goes on.

Ok so i'm starting to understand where this is going.
There's no real evidence at all of Russia doing anything regarding the elections or our administration being puppets, but there is a clear indicator of a conflict of interest based on a history of business between Rex Tillerson/Trump and Russia.

At least that's something, i can understand that.
I'll keep watching.

[ivan134]

5 minutes ago, N1ghtshade said:

@suits said that there was 11 hours of footage to scrub through, and that her admitting it was in the footage

 

You said "Yeah lol sure whatever she didn't say nuffin"

 

So, I was responding to your ridiculous statement that she didn't admit to using the server

41 minutes ago, suits said:

Looks some someone either doesn't understand the Benghazi situation, or you don't care. Where is the proof of Russia interfering? Liberals keep blaming and no concrete evidence has been brought. If there was actual proof congress would have already acted. Get over it.

 

22 minutes ago, suits said:

There was proof, she admitted what she did. Everyone knows she left them there without taking proper action. Congress didn't act. And it's why I like neither party.

 

[2FA]

We turned a legitimate TNR topic into a political debate circle jerk.

[ace_cheaply]

4 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

 

It's pretty annoying that I have to keep defending someone I hate so much. Hillary has so many legitimate issues and conservatives always choose to focus on the made up boogeyman.

 

[ivan134]

3 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

 

Again

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

[AntonChigurh]

2 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

We turned a legitimate TNR topic into a political debate circle jerk.

Don't we always?

[AntonChigurh]

Just now, ivan134 said:

Again

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

[stconquest]

1 minute ago, Memories4K said:

Ok so i'm starting to understand where this is going.
There's no real evidence at all of Russia doing anything regarding the elections or our administration being puppets, but there is a clear indicator of a conflict of interest based on a history of business between Rex Tillerson/Trump and Russia.

At least that's something, i can understand that.
I'll keep watching.

There were a few state registrars temporarily shut down due to FBI warnings/recommendation in the summer of 2016.  Officials in the registry office were told of strong indicators that the hacking could be linked to the red state.  Again, this is not news.  To think Russia is not using "cyber" to infiltrate US systems is naive, as is believing that the US does not act in a similarly unethical manner.

[AntonChigurh]

7 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

 

 

[ivan134]

7 minutes ago, N1ghtshade said:

I'll admit. It's a funny meme.