• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Inspector General finds that Clinton sent classified info on personal server

Which mannish lady biographer was Hillary banging?

Like jhmd is going to vote for Bernie if it comes out that GOP nominee Trump has been communicating with North Korea via Dennis Rodman.

Barack and Michelle are squeaky clean and the conservatives still hate them.
 
DeaconCav06 said:
I mean David Petraeus got into some serious trouble for stuff like this and he was an America icon before he got caught.
Click to expand...

What trouble?!?!?! He's on PROBATION For leaking AGENTS' IDENTITIES to HIS MISTRESS in exchange for BLOWJOBS. He is in nothing approaching serious trouble, let alone trouble commensurate with how recklessly he acted.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
What trouble?!?!?! He's on PROBATION For leaking AGENTS' IDENTITIES to HIS MISTRESS in exchange for BLOWJOBS. He is in nothing approaching serious trouble, let alone trouble commensurate with how recklessly he acted.
Click to expand...

So if he was on probation was he convicted of something?
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
Not treason
Click to expand...
What exactly do you call what he did, then?

He was boasting about his credentials to impress his girl iirc, but disclosing classified intel to civilians without clearance strikes me as treasonous behavior.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
So he'll have to check a box before giving 5- or 6-figure paid speeches? And, against all reason, apparently still is dealing with sensitive information?

My contention is that what Petraeus has undergone is not really trouble, and certainly is not serious trouble.
Click to expand...

Right but my point is that if HRC were found to be guilty of the same offense it should kill her candidacy.

I'm not saying the situation is totally analogous but it's also not a non issue. And in full disclosure, I would probably vote HRC over 95% of the GOP field right now.
 
Treason and irresponsibly putting people at risk chasing pussy are two different things. Regardless, I get the feeling we'll be hearing a lot more of these stories when the ashleymadison data dump happens.
 
Strickland33 said:
What exactly do you call what he did, then?

He was boasting about his credentials to impress his girl iirc, but disclosing classified intel to civilians without clearance strikes me as treasonous behavior.
Click to expand...

I call it recklessness and terrible information security.

DeaconCav06 said:
Right but my point is that if HRC were found to be guilty of the same offense it should kill her candidacy.

I'm not saying the situation is totally analogous but it's also not a non issue. And in full disclosure, I would probably vote HRC over 95% of the GOP field right now.
Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to killing HRC's candidacy (President Sanders!) but I don't think the two situations are especially similar. Petraeus shared extremely sensitive information with someone who wasn't authorized to have it in exchange for BJs. In addition, the adultery made him vulnerable to counter-intelligence. All around terrible for a CIA Director. There isn't anything approaching a benign explanation for any part of it.

Clinton set up a private email server, like previous Secretaries of State, to hide from FOIA requests. I dislike that. The press, public, and historians should have access to her emails. But there are many ways of avoiding disclosure, and what one Secretary of State might use private email to hide, another might might conceal by sticking to phones and meetings without minutes.

And the private server may have been vulnerable to foreign hacking (so might State, though). So there's some risk to the security of the information Clinton was dealing with. I don't know whether it's a greater or a lesser risk than using State's emails. But I'm not aware of HRC sending classified information (directly) to people who shouldn't have had it, or compromising herself the way Petraeus did. And for me, those are two huge differences between the two.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
I call it recklessness and terrible information security.



I'm not opposed to killing HRC's candidacy (President Sanders!) but I don't think the two situations are especially similar. Petraeus shared extremely sensitive information with someone who wasn't authorized to have it in exchange for BJs. In addition, the adultery made him vulnerable to counter-intelligence. All around terrible for a CIA Director. There isn't anything approaching a benign explanation for any part of it.

Clinton set up a private email server, like previous Secretaries of State, to hide from FOIA requests. I dislike that. The press, public, and historians should have access to her emails. But there are many ways of avoiding disclosure, and what one Secretary of State might use private email to hide, another might might conceal by sticking to phones and meetings without minutes.

And the private server may have been vulnerable to foreign hacking (so might State, though). So there's some risk to the security of the information Clinton was dealing with. I don't know whether it's a greater or a lesser risk than using State's emails. But I'm not aware of HRC sending classified information (directly) to people who shouldn't have had it, or compromising herself the way Petraeus did. And for me, those are two huge differences between the two.
Click to expand...

QFT

She''s going to testify in front of Congress next week. Beware what you ask for Republicans, she's not going there under oath without knowing the answers to the questions that will be asked. Will it change any Republicans' minds, no. Will it take most of their attack ads off the table with moderates, possibly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top