4 ms·

At this point, I'd only like to know why you're making personal attacks on someone you've never met in order to support and defend a politician who's committed

At this point, I'd only like to know why you're making personal attacks on someone you've never met in order to support and defend a politician who's committed federal crimes -- one who you've likely also never met. Might be time to step back and take a deep breath, my friend. Have you actually read the emails in question? I've referenced them elsewhere in this thread.

KirinDave 10y ago
I've read most of the Wikileaks materials. I've taken them with a grain of salt because there is strong evidence that Assange does not have control of Wikileaks, and therefore it's very difficult to trust the entirely of the corpus. Even if I take all of them as 100% verified, I am certainly not "chilled" the way you are. Nor do I think having IT fuckups should be a federal crime. Given how shit both R and D party security is, I suspect the private email servers are actually afforded a bit of security by being obscure. And the only aspersion I've thrown your way is that this allegation of "codespeak" is rubbish and lead people to dangerous actions on the grounds of "PizzaGate". I don't agree with your picture of reality, but I think you're an adult capable of recognizing this and therefore should be responsible for your viewpoints in a public discussion forum you choose to engage in. If I didn't feel that way, I wouldn't reply. You wouldn't be responsible for your actions.
- MicroBerto 10y ago
  > Given how shit both R and D party security is... Ummm, since we're now talking about the private email server (still absolutely illegal, regardless of justification), we're not talking about DNC leaks here, so this has nothing to do with "D" and "R". That ClintonEmail.com server should have been in the STATE DEPARTMENT behind government firewalls, heavily monitored by our government's cybersecurity division. > I suspect the private email servers are actually afforded a bit of security by being obscure. WOW!!! Are you listening to yourself?! That's demonstrably been proven to be completely false (ClintonEmail.com is not exactly a "obscure" domain, BTW) -- and by her team's own admission, as there was hack attempt after hack attempt: * http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/JW-v-State-Pagliano-Secret-Service-01441-1.pdf http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/JW-v... * http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/JW-v-State-Abedin-Deposition-01363.pdf http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/JW-v... * http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/JW-v-State-Mills-deposition-01363.pdf http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/JW-v... Then, of course, there was this quote: > Finally, we learned there is a confidence from these sources that her server had been hacked. And that it was a 99% accuracy that it had been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that things had been taken from that. But, "you suspect". How about this: I suspect that they setup a private email server to keep out of the reach of FOIA attempts, because of Lord knows what scandals would have been unearthed. Those emails are out there, many of them possibly on the Weiner laptop or elsewhere, and time will tell if there will ever be any justice served for these Federal crimes.
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    > That ClintonEmail.com server should have been in the STATE DEPARTMENT behind government firewalls, heavily monitored by our government's cybersecurity division. Which is a token gesture and we all know it. Most private companies have better cybersecurity than the "STATE DEPARTMENT." > That's demonstrably been proven to be completely false (ClintonEmail.com is not exactly a "obscure" domain, BTW) -- and by her team's own admission, as there was hack attempt after hack attempt: Email servers ... seeing hack attempts via direct and content-driven means? WOW. THAT ONLY HAPPENS TO STATE OFFICIALS! MY EMAILS CERTAINLY HAVE NEVER SEEN MALICIOUS LINKS. > I suspect that they setup a private email server to keep out of the reach of FOIA attempts, because of Lord knows what scandals would have been unearthed. I hope that you extend this righteous anger to Pence and the Trump campaign for doing everything they can to keep campaign planning materials hidden by (curiously) successfully invoking attorney-client privilege.
peteretep 10y ago
> I'd only like to know why > you're making personal > attacks I don't see any personal attacks? He's mocking your delusional and dull talking points, not you.

KirinDave 10y ago

I've read most of the Wikileaks materials. I've taken them with a grain of salt because there is strong evidence that Assange does not have control of Wikileaks, and therefore it's very difficult to trust the entirely of the corpus. Even if I take all of them as 100% verified, I am certainly not "chilled" the way you are. Nor do I think having IT fuckups should be a federal crime. Given how shit both R and D party security is, I suspect the private email servers are actually afforded a bit of security by being obscure. And the only aspersion I've thrown your way is that this allegation of "codespeak" is rubbish and lead people to dangerous actions on the grounds of "PizzaGate". I don't agree with your picture of reality, but I think you're an adult capable of recognizing this and therefore should be responsible for your viewpoints in a public discussion forum you choose to engage in. If I didn't feel that way, I wouldn't reply. You wouldn't be responsible for your actions.

MicroBerto 10y ago
> Given how shit both R and D party security is... Ummm, since we're now talking about the private email server (still absolutely illegal, regardless of justification), we're not talking about DNC leaks here, so this has nothing to do with "D" and "R". That ClintonEmail.com server should have been in the STATE DEPARTMENT behind government firewalls, heavily monitored by our government's cybersecurity division. > I suspect the private email servers are actually afforded a bit of security by being obscure. WOW!!! Are you listening to yourself?! That's demonstrably been proven to be completely false (ClintonEmail.com is not exactly a "obscure" domain, BTW) -- and by her team's own admission, as there was hack attempt after hack attempt: * http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/JW-v-State-Pagliano-Secret-Service-01441-1.pdf http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/JW-v... * http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/JW-v-State-Abedin-Deposition-01363.pdf http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/JW-v... * http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/JW-v-State-Mills-deposition-01363.pdf http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/JW-v... Then, of course, there was this quote: > Finally, we learned there is a confidence from these sources that her server had been hacked. And that it was a 99% accuracy that it had been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that things had been taken from that. But, "you suspect". How about this: I suspect that they setup a private email server to keep out of the reach of FOIA attempts, because of Lord knows what scandals would have been unearthed. Those emails are out there, many of them possibly on the Weiner laptop or elsewhere, and time will tell if there will ever be any justice served for these Federal crimes.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  > That ClintonEmail.com server should have been in the STATE DEPARTMENT behind government firewalls, heavily monitored by our government's cybersecurity division. Which is a token gesture and we all know it. Most private companies have better cybersecurity than the "STATE DEPARTMENT." > That's demonstrably been proven to be completely false (ClintonEmail.com is not exactly a "obscure" domain, BTW) -- and by her team's own admission, as there was hack attempt after hack attempt: Email servers ... seeing hack attempts via direct and content-driven means? WOW. THAT ONLY HAPPENS TO STATE OFFICIALS! MY EMAILS CERTAINLY HAVE NEVER SEEN MALICIOUS LINKS. > I suspect that they setup a private email server to keep out of the reach of FOIA attempts, because of Lord knows what scandals would have been unearthed. I hope that you extend this righteous anger to Pence and the Trump campaign for doing everything they can to keep campaign planning materials hidden by (curiously) successfully invoking attorney-client privilege.

peteretep 10y ago

> I'd only like to know why > you're making personal > attacks I don't see any personal attacks? He's mocking your delusional and dull talking points, not you.