(07-15-2016 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Correct and correct. But it's not my decision and outside my scope. That's why I read and trust what the FBI and other experts said, that "Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

Translation, no chance of a conviction.

Alternate translation, perfectly legitimate reason for someone to not vote for her.

You guys are focused on the 'criminal conviction' aspects of it, and of course that plays into a relatively small number of conspiracy theorists... as well as a larger number of less strongly motivated people who believe that it happened, but know that it can't likely be proven.

but by 'bad optics' you are essentially admitting that the opinion that an 'inside deal was put in place' isn't a completely unreasonable opinion.... i.e. not 'tin foil'.

I ALSO think there is an active plan by the Clintons (and has been for some time) to respond to reasonable questions about the 'optics' by engaging the conspiracy theorists... associating the entire claim to their theories and then dismiss it as a wild accusation. That's what a number of you are doing right here.

It's extremely smart politics and has taken place for centuries... even alluded to in books and movies... though most often attributed to people who ultimately were considered by the population to be 'villains'.

(07-15-2016 01:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Correct and correct. But it's not my decision and outside my scope. That's why I read and trust what the FBI and other experts said, that "Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

Translation, no chance of a conviction.

Alternate translation, perfectly legitimate reason for someone to not vote for her.

Sure, I've said this numerous times.

(07-15-2016 01:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 01:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Correct and correct. But it's not my decision and outside my scope. That's why I read and trust what the FBI and other experts said, that "Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

Translation, no chance of a conviction.

Alternate translation, perfectly legitimate reason for someone to not vote for her.

Sure, I've said this numerous times.

I know you have. Do you deny the rest? Just curious.

(07-15-2016 01:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 01:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 01:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Correct and correct. But it's not my decision and outside my scope. That's why I read and trust what the FBI and other experts said, that "Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

Translation, no chance of a conviction.

Alternate translation, perfectly legitimate reason for someone to not vote for her.

Sure, I've said this numerous times.

I know you have. Do you deny the rest? Just curious.

Most of it, yes.

I do agree however, that they have used some of the older conspiracy theories to their advantage, but not this one. Perhaps because it's still way too early, perhaps not at all.

(07-15-2016 02:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Most of it, yes.

I do agree however, that they have used some of the older conspiracy theories to their advantage, but not this one. Perhaps because it's still way too early, perhaps not at all.

Interesting how perspectives can differ.

I feel as if I've seen 'ongoing witch hunt' associated with this from her or people very close to her.... but maybe that's perception... and I think it undeniable that 'most defenders' either only respond to the conspiracy theories, or quickly go to the 'bad optics'.... not you... you have been consistent here.... yep bad, not criminal.

The reality is that the email affair, up to and including this meeting was more than bad optics. It wasn't criminal, but it was a fairly long and significant number of poor decisions about things that aren't trivial.

(07-15-2016 03:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 02:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Most of it, yes.

I do agree however, that they have used some of the older conspiracy theories to their advantage, but not this one. Perhaps because it's still way too early, perhaps not at all.

Interesting how perspectives can differ.

I feel as if I've seen 'ongoing witch hunt' associated with this from her or people very close to her.... but maybe that's perception... and I think it undeniable that 'most defenders' either only respond to the conspiracy theories, or quickly go to the 'bad optics'.... not you... you have been consistent here.... yep bad, not criminal.

The reality is that the email affair, up to and including this meeting was more than bad optics. It wasn't criminal, but it was a fairly long and significant number of poor decisions about things that aren't trivial.

Thats what happens when you are not technically sophisticated.

(07-15-2016 12:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 07:18 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 07:13 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Is it against the law for the Clintons to talk to Lynch and say hey, if we win in November, we are thinking of keeping you on.

You really don't see the influence peddling in this comment, do you?

Of course I do. Im simply saying its not against the law.

And you're going to vote for her anyway, aren't you?

(07-15-2016 06:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 03:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 02:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Most of it, yes.

I do agree however, that they have used some of the older conspiracy theories to their advantage, but not this one. Perhaps because it's still way too early, perhaps not at all.

Interesting how perspectives can differ.

I feel as if I've seen 'ongoing witch hunt' associated with this from her or people very close to her.... but maybe that's perception... and I think it undeniable that 'most defenders' either only respond to the conspiracy theories, or quickly go to the 'bad optics'.... not you... you have been consistent here.... yep bad, not criminal.

The reality is that the email affair, up to and including this meeting was more than bad optics. It wasn't criminal, but it was a fairly long and significant number of poor decisions about things that aren't trivial.

Thats what happens when you are not technically sophisticated.

She has advisers to fill in the gaps that she lacks. She had all the info she needed. She was well aware and willingly broke the laws she chose to flaunt.

(07-15-2016 06:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Thats what happens when you are not technically sophisticated.

Wait... so when you're not technically sophisticated, you think it's a good idea to set up a private email server rather than the government server against the instructions of the government?

I believe she didn't know the risks. I don't believe for a moment that she didn't know it was against policy. She just thought that keeping her emails private was more important that following government policy w/r/t to secure email. For someone who is SOS during a time when a 7 year old has heard about emails being hacked... That's more than not being sophisticated.

But yeah, she's not technically sophisticated.

(07-15-2016 06:29 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 12:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 07:18 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 07:13 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Is it against the law for the Clintons to talk to Lynch and say hey, if we win in November, we are thinking of keeping you on.

You really don't see the influence peddling in this comment, do you?

Of course I do. Im simply saying its not against the law.

And you're going to vote for her anyway, aren't you?

Actually no, I live in Texas and there is no point in voting. A monkey would winTexas if he had a letter R next to its name.

(07-15-2016 11:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 06:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Thats what happens when you are not technically sophisticated.

Wait... so when you're not technically sophisticated, you think it's a good idea to set up a private email server rather than the government server against the instructions of the government?

I believe she didn't know the risks. I don't believe for a moment that she didn't know it was against policy. She just thought that keeping her emails private was more important that following government policy w/r/t to secure email. For someone who is SOS during a time when a 7 year old has heard about emails being hacked... That's more than not being sophisticated.

But yeah, she's not technically sophisticated.

K-Y wouldn't help her or his arid box-hole....

(07-15-2016 11:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 06:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Thats what happens when you are not technically sophisticated.

Wait... so when you're not technically sophisticated, you think it's a good idea to set up a private email server rather than the government server against the instructions of the government?

I believe she didn't know the risks. I don't believe for a moment that she didn't know it was against policy. She just thought that keeping her emails private was more important that following government policy w/r/t to secure email. For someone who is SOS during a time when a 7 year old has heard about emails being hacked... That's more than not being sophisticated.

But yeah, she's not technically sophisticated.

She didnt set up a private server.It was her husbands.

(07-16-2016 10:38 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 11:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 06:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Thats what happens when you are not technically sophisticated.

Wait... so when you're not technically sophisticated, you think it's a good idea to set up a private email server rather than the government server against the instructions of the government?

I believe she didn't know the risks. I don't believe for a moment that she didn't know it was against policy. She just thought that keeping her emails private was more important that following government policy w/r/t to secure email. For someone who is SOS during a time when a 7 year old has heard about emails being hacked... That's more than not being sophisticated.

But yeah, she's not technically sophisticated.

She didnt set up a private server.It was her husbands.

Bless your gullible heart.

(07-16-2016 10:38 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 11:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 06:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Thats what happens when you are not technically sophisticated.

Wait... so when you're not technically sophisticated, you think it's a good idea to set up a private email server rather than the government server against the instructions of the government?

I believe she didn't know the risks. I don't believe for a moment that she didn't know it was against policy. She just thought that keeping her emails private was more important that following government policy w/r/t to secure email. For someone who is SOS during a time when a 7 year old has heard about emails being hacked... That's more than not being sophisticated.

But yeah, she's not technically sophisticated.

She didnt set up a private server.It was her husbands.

Funny, her husband is on record as saying he doesn't use email. That's a true, but insignificant detail.

Fine, replace USED with 'SET UP' and the situation is exactly the same.

Obviously I didn't mean she herself 'set up' the server... because she is not technically sophisticated.

People who know so little about computers and email technology shouldn't go against their employers 'technology' requirements... especially when your employer is the Federal Government and your position is Secretary of State.

(07-16-2016 12:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 10:38 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 11:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 06:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Thats what happens when you are not technically sophisticated.

Wait... so when you're not technically sophisticated, you think it's a good idea to set up a private email server rather than the government server against the instructions of the government?

I believe she didn't know the risks. I don't believe for a moment that she didn't know it was against policy. She just thought that keeping her emails private was more important that following government policy w/r/t to secure email. For someone who is SOS during a time when a 7 year old has heard about emails being hacked... That's more than not being sophisticated.

But yeah, she's not technically sophisticated.

She didnt set up a private server.It was her husbands.

Funny, her husband is on record as saying he doesn't use email. That's a true, but insignificant detail.

Fine, replace USED with 'SET UP' and the situation is exactly the same.

Obviously I didn't mean she herself 'set up' the server... because she is not technically sophisticated.

People who know so little about computers and email technology shouldn't go against their employers 'technology' requirements... especially when your employer is the Federal Government and your position is Secretary of State.

I agree but people from their generation have no concept of how the internet works. People pay their bills at McDonalds all the time and they think they are safe because they had to use a password to get into their bank account.

(07-16-2016 12:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 12:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 10:38 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 11:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 06:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Thats what happens when you are not technically sophisticated.

Wait... so when you're not technically sophisticated, you think it's a good idea to set up a private email server rather than the government server against the instructions of the government?

I believe she didn't know the risks. I don't believe for a moment that she didn't know it was against policy. She just thought that keeping her emails private was more important that following government policy w/r/t to secure email. For someone who is SOS during a time when a 7 year old has heard about emails being hacked... That's more than not being sophisticated.

But yeah, she's not technically sophisticated.

She didnt set up a private server.It was her husbands.

Funny, her husband is on record as saying he doesn't use email. That's a true, but insignificant detail.

Fine, replace USED with 'SET UP' and the situation is exactly the same.

Obviously I didn't mean she herself 'set up' the server... because she is not technically sophisticated.

People who know so little about computers and email technology shouldn't go against their employers 'technology' requirements... especially when your employer is the Federal Government and your position is Secretary of State.

I agree but people from their generation have no concept of how the internet works. People pay their bills at McDonalds all the time and they think they are safe because they had to use a password to get into their bank account.

So you are saying Hillary is completely stupid because she set something up in which she had no knowledge of how it worked, so that she could circumvent the systems set up by people who knew what they were doing, to handle some of the most classified data our country has.

And now you want to vote for the dumbazz for president.

(07-16-2016 12:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 12:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 12:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 10:38 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 11:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Wait... so when you're not technically sophisticated, you think it's a good idea to set up a private email server rather than the government server against the instructions of the government?

I believe she didn't know the risks. I don't believe for a moment that she didn't know it was against policy. She just thought that keeping her emails private was more important that following government policy w/r/t to secure email. For someone who is SOS during a time when a 7 year old has heard about emails being hacked... That's more than not being sophisticated.

But yeah, she's not technically sophisticated.

She didnt set up a private server.It was her husbands.

Funny, her husband is on record as saying he doesn't use email. That's a true, but insignificant detail.

Fine, replace USED with 'SET UP' and the situation is exactly the same.

Obviously I didn't mean she herself 'set up' the server... because she is not technically sophisticated.

People who know so little about computers and email technology shouldn't go against their employers 'technology' requirements... especially when your employer is the Federal Government and your position is Secretary of State.

I agree but people from their generation have no concept of how the internet works. People pay their bills at McDonalds all the time and they think they are safe because they had to use a password to get into their bank account.

So you are saying Hillary is completely stupid because she set something up in which she had no knowledge of how it worked, so that she could circumvent the systems set up by people who knew what they were doing, to handle some of the most classified data our country has.

And now you want to vote for the dumbazz for president.

Just because you dont know how the internet works doesnt make you stupid.

(07-16-2016 01:03 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 12:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 12:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 12:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 10:38 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  She didnt set up a private server.It was her husbands.

Funny, her husband is on record as saying he doesn't use email. That's a true, but insignificant detail.

Fine, replace USED with 'SET UP' and the situation is exactly the same.

Obviously I didn't mean she herself 'set up' the server... because she is not technically sophisticated.

People who know so little about computers and email technology shouldn't go against their employers 'technology' requirements... especially when your employer is the Federal Government and your position is Secretary of State.

I agree but people from their generation have no concept of how the internet works. People pay their bills at McDonalds all the time and they think they are safe because they had to use a password to get into their bank account.

So you are saying Hillary is completely stupid because she set something up in which she had no knowledge of how it worked, so that she could circumvent the systems set up by people who knew what they were doing, to handle some of the most classified data our country has.

And now you want to vote for the dumbazz for president.

Just because you dont know how the internet works doesnt make you stupid.

Correct. Circumvetning a system installed by experts to your own system which you dont know anything about is extremely stupid.

So you admit Hillary is extremely stupid.

And the FBI agrees.

(07-16-2016 01:05 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 01:03 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 12:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 12:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 12:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Funny, her husband is on record as saying he doesn't use email. That's a true, but insignificant detail.

Fine, replace USED with 'SET UP' and the situation is exactly the same.

Obviously I didn't mean she herself 'set up' the server... because she is not technically sophisticated.

People who know so little about computers and email technology shouldn't go against their employers 'technology' requirements... especially when your employer is the Federal Government and your position is Secretary of State.

I agree but people from their generation have no concept of how the internet works. People pay their bills at McDonalds all the time and they think they are safe because they had to use a password to get into their bank account.

So you are saying Hillary is completely stupid because she set something up in which she had no knowledge of how it worked, so that she could circumvent the systems set up by people who knew what they were doing, to handle some of the most classified data our country has.

And now you want to vote for the dumbazz for president.

Just because you dont know how the internet works doesnt make you stupid.

Correct. Circumvetning a system installed by experts to your own system which you dont know anything about is extremely stupid.

So you admit Hillary is extremely stupid.

And the FBI agrees.

Nope. You guys are the ones twisting yourself into a prezel trying to make her look stupid yet smart enough to circumvent the security of the national government.

She made a mistake.End of story. It happens with people of a generation who didnt grow up with computers.

(07-16-2016 01:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 01:05 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 01:03 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 12:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 12:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I agree but people from their generation have no concept of how the internet works. People pay their bills at McDonalds all the time and they think they are safe because they had to use a password to get into their bank account.

So you are saying Hillary is completely stupid because she set something up in which she had no knowledge of how it worked, so that she could circumvent the systems set up by people who knew what they were doing, to handle some of the most classified data our country has.

And now you want to vote for the dumbazz for president.

Just because you dont know how the internet works doesnt make you stupid.

Correct. Circumvetning a system installed by experts to your own system which you dont know anything about is extremely stupid.

So you admit Hillary is extremely stupid.

And the FBI agrees.

Nope. You guys are the ones twisting yourself into a prezel trying to make her look stupid yet smart enough to circumvent the security of the national government.

She made a mistake.End of story. It happens with people of a generation who didnt grow up with computers.

She made a mistake because she was stupid.

Then she lied about it.