2016 Presidential Race Topic

1. "Extremely careless"

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

2. "Should have known"

"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

3. "Especially concerning"

"None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government -- or even with a commercial email service like Gmail."

4. "Still obligated to protect it"

"Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

5. "Generally lacking"

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified email systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information that is found elsewhere in the government.

6. "Hostile actors"

"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent."

7. "Sophisticated adversaries"

"She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."
7/5/2016 5:56 PM
That's BL's girl, the one he wants running our country.
7/5/2016 5:57 PM
Pretty sure you said you are voting for her.
7/5/2016 7:01 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 7/5/2016 5:56:00 PM (view original):

1. "Extremely careless"

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

2. "Should have known"

"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

3. "Especially concerning"

"None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government -- or even with a commercial email service like Gmail."

4. "Still obligated to protect it"

"Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

5. "Generally lacking"

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified email systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information that is found elsewhere in the government.

6. "Hostile actors"

"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent."

7. "Sophisticated adversaries"

"She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."
Well, yeah, it looks bad if you put it THAT way.
7/5/2016 8:10 PM
An analysis by Center for Public Integrity provided by ad monitoring group Kantar Media/CMAG found that since June, Hillary Clinton’s campaign had aired around 20,000 TV ads, while Donald Trump’s campaign had launched a big, fat zero.
7/5/2016 8:46 PM
Trump hasn't even started on Hillary yet!
7/5/2016 8:47 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 7/5/2016 7:01:00 PM (view original):
Pretty sure you said you are voting for her.
Pretty sure I clarified EXACTLY what I intend to do, numbnuts.
7/5/2016 9:18 PM
Posted by moy23 on 7/5/2016 8:46:00 PM (view original):
An analysis by Center for Public Integrity provided by ad monitoring group Kantar Media/CMAG found that since June, Hillary Clinton’s campaign had aired around 20,000 TV ads, while Donald Trump’s campaign had launched a big, fat zero.
Um, yeah. Because he doesn't have any money to buy ads.
7/5/2016 9:18 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 7/5/2016 9:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/5/2016 7:01:00 PM (view original):
Pretty sure you said you are voting for her.
Pretty sure I clarified EXACTLY what I intend to do, numbnuts.
Sorry if I don't remember all of your posts. I know that at one point you planned to vote for her.
7/5/2016 9:19 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 7/5/2016 9:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/5/2016 9:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/5/2016 7:01:00 PM (view original):
Pretty sure you said you are voting for her.
Pretty sure I clarified EXACTLY what I intend to do, numbnuts.
Sorry if I don't remember all of your posts. I know that at one point you planned to vote for her.
That would be incorrect.
7/5/2016 9:27 PM
tec and I have both clearly stated that we'd sit this one out.

This is the two worst options presented in my lifetime.
7/5/2016 9:34 PM
For BL's benefit:

I said I would vote for Hillary ONLY if it looked like CT was going to be a tight race between her and Trump, and my vote might be meaningful. But since CT has traditionally been a very blue state, and Hillary likely will take CT easily, there's no need for me to vote for her. And since there are likely to be no viable candidates for President on the ballot this November, this will be a "None of the above" year.
7/5/2016 9:38 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/5/2016 9:34:00 PM (view original):
tec and I have both clearly stated that we'd sit this one out.

This is the two worst options presented in my lifetime.
My older son turns 18 right before the election and will be eligible to vote this time around.

I can't tell you how disgusted I am that this is what he's facing for his first time voting.
7/5/2016 9:39 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 7/5/2016 9:40:00 PM (view original):
For BL's benefit:

I said I would vote for Hillary ONLY if it looked like CT was going to be a tight race between her and Trump, and my vote might be meaningful. But since CT has traditionally been a very blue state, and Hillary likely will take CT easily, there's no need for me to vote for her. And since there are likely to be no viable candidates for President on the ballot this November, this will be a "None of the above" year.
I'm pretty sure that was a clarification of one of your previous posts, but whatever.
7/5/2016 9:46 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 7/5/2016 9:46:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/5/2016 9:40:00 PM (view original):
For BL's benefit:

I said I would vote for Hillary ONLY if it looked like CT was going to be a tight race between her and Trump, and my vote might be meaningful. But since CT has traditionally been a very blue state, and Hillary likely will take CT easily, there's no need for me to vote for her. And since there are likely to be no viable candidates for President on the ballot this November, this will be a "None of the above" year.
I'm pretty sure that was a clarification of one of your previous posts, but whatever.
Moron. See my 9:18 PM post.
7/5/2016 9:55 PM
◂ Prev 1...381|382|383|384|385...575 Next ▸
2016 Presidential Race Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.