Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2015/12/12 03:32:18
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Kanluwen wrote: You do understand that someone can invoke their fifth amendment rights without actually being involved in anything, right?
Do you really think Whembly et al. cares about such minutiae? This person was involved with Hillary Clinton, who is obviously guilty of everything ever accused of her so clearly this guy is too.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/12/12 19:45:40
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Kanluwen wrote: You do understand that someone can invoke their fifth amendment rights without actually being involved in anything, right?
Do you really think Whembly et al. cares about such minutiae? This person was involved with Hillary Clinton, who is obviously guilty of everything ever accused of her so clearly this guy is too.
Um... he was allegedly the admin over her private email server.
He's pretty dang important to this investigation... no?
The fact that the STATES DEPT, couldn't retrieve his correspondence from his official god damned account is galling. If the Feds asked for this in the private sector... that's jail time there man.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/12 19:49:12
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/12/12 19:57:20
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Still, because he's exercising his constitutional right against self incrimination you're claiming he's obstructing justice.
I guess constitutional rights only matter when you agree with them.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2019/03/26 20:02:09
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I wouldn't say anything either, even if I was innocent. Fact is he'll get ripped by republican-leaning media regardless of what he says, if the stays quiet its less interesting and they'll move on to other 'stories' faster.
Also...
If the Feds asked for this from someone who wasn't wealthy in the private sector... that's jail time there man.
Of course you're not assuming anything...you're just implying that he's a lackey for a presidential candidate you dislike and claiming that people are misunderstanding you when called to task for it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/12 20:34:55
2015/12/12 21:16:00
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
So, you didn't state that Pagliano would be obstructing justice by refusing to testify? If that's the case, who exactly are you accusing of obstructing justice? The Department of State? If so you would have a difficult time building a case, as you would need to demonstrate that State knowingly lied about its inability to locate a .pst covering Pagliano's time working at State under Clinton. Granted, it's doubtful that the GOP is particularly concerned with the legal merit of any such accusation.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2015/12/12 21:36:28
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
But, that doesn't mean an investigation shouldn't happen.
Who is saying there shouldn't be an investigation?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/12 21:37:29
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/12/12 21:42:32
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
He's pretty dang important to this investigation... no?
Debatable. It's unlikely that Pagliano spent much of his time reading the content of emails on the server, and even less likely that he would be able to recall any such details years after the fact. Ultimately, if compelled to testify, he would be wise to make "I cannot recall." a personal mantra.
The fact that the STATES DEPT, couldn't retrieve his correspondence from his official god damned account is galling. If the Feds asked for this in the private sector... that's jail time there man.
Not necessarily. Absent some specific statute governing record keeping a private sector entity is under no obligation to maintain a log of correspondence. Of course Federal agencies differ in that they are legally obligated to maintain records, but it has to be noted that at the time Clinton was Secretary of State they were given a fair bit of leeway regarding what constitutes a record and how long non-records will be maintained. Indeed, it wasn't until nearly 2 years after Clinton stepped down, well past the 90-day post-office clearing mark some have given for State Department email accounts, that Federal agencies were required to forward emails to the Archivist of the United States for status determination. Given this, it is questionable as to whether or not any form of criminal allegation would stick.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/12 21:43:42
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2015/12/12 23:10:01
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Seven weeks from the caucuses, Ted Cruz is crushing it in Iowa.
The anti-establishment congressional agitator has made a rapid ascent into the lead in the GOP presidential race here, with a 21 percentage-point leap that smashes records for upsurges in recent Iowa caucuses history.
Donald Trump, now 10 points below Cruz, was in a pique about not being front-runner even before the Iowa Poll results were announced Saturday evening. He wasted no time in tearing into Cruz — and the poll — during an Iowa stop Friday night.
Ben Carson, another "Washington outsider" candidate, has plunged 15 points from his perch at the front of the pack in October. He's now in third place.
"Big shakeup," said J. Ann Selzer, pollster for The Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll. "This is a sudden move into a commanding position for Cruz."
Cruz, a Texas U.S. senator famous for defying party leaders and using government shutdown tactics to hold up funding for the Obamacare health care law and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, was the favorite of 10 percent of likely Republican caucusgoers in the last Iowa Poll in October. He's now at 31 percent.
Carson's zenith was 28 percent in the poll two months ago. Trump's highest support was 23 percent back in August, when he led the field by 5 points.
And there are signs Cruz may not have peaked in Iowa yet. Another 20 percent of likely caucusgoers say he's their current second choice for president. Cruz hits 51 percent support when first- and second-choice interest is combined, again leading the field.
With Cruz's popularity and his debate proficiency, "it's certainly possible that he could win Iowa big — very big," said Frank Luntz, a Nevada-based GOP focus group guru who follows the Iowa race closely.
But Trump, who has earned a reputation for upending pundits' predictions, still has healthy backing, at 21 percent, 2 percentage points higher than in the last poll.
And the New York real estate entrepreneur has won the confidence of likely caucusgoers in several key areas. In a four-way head-to-head match-up with Cruz, Carson and Marco Rubio, half of likely caucusgoers believe Trump would be best at managing the economy and think he'd do the most to solve the illegal immigration problem. Forty-nine percent believe Trump "knows the most about how to get things done," while only 22 percent say that of Cruz.
Carson, a mellow-voiced religious conservative who spent his career at the bedside of children who needed brain surgery, has dropped to 13 percent. Poll respondents interviewed by the Register said they want a president who will be tough on terrorism, and they have a trouble seeing Carson in this role.
Two establishment candidates' positions in the race remain largely unchanged.
Rubio, a Florida U.S. senator who has framed himself as someone who can deliver "a new American century," is in fourth place with 10 percent. He was in fourth with 9 percent in October.
And former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who presents himself as the steady hand who can best keep the nation safe from terrorism and improve the economy, remains in fifth (he was tied in fifth with Kentucky U.S. Sen. Rand Paul in October). Bush sits at 6 percent, up 1 point.
Three Republicans are tied at 3 percent: Paul, a watchdog for government overreach; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a torchbearer for Christian conservative morals; and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a self-proclaimed messenger of hard truths.
This poll result will play a role in determining whether Paul is on the main stage for the Las Vegas debate Tuesday night, or if he’ll be with the underdogs in the undercard debate.
The rest of the field is at 2 percent or less, including Carly Fiorina, a public office rookie who leans on her experience as a technology company CEO, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who stresses his longtime government experience and competence.
The Iowa Poll of 400 likely Republican caucusgoers was conducted Dec. 7-10 by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.
Just as some top Republicans in Iowa and across the country were starting to say Trump might win not only Iowa but also the GOP nomination, he finds himself losing by 10 points here.
"Iowa's 11th commandment is thou shalt be nice," said Jamie Johnson, an Iowa political operative who was senior director for former presidential candidate Rick Perry's campaign. "Donald Trump has violated this commandment one too many times. Now he is paying the price."
The poll shows the Iowa electorate has started to define Trump a little more clearly. He has hammered home the impression that he'd be a get-it-done problem-solver on the federal deficit, on dealing with the aggressive president of Russia, and on combating Islamic terrorism.
But he scores poorly on temperament to be president, ability to work effectively with Congress, and on values.
Those are areas where Cruz is viewed as best, the poll finds.
Since the October poll, Cruz got strong reviews in two debates, stepped up his visits to Iowa and was validated by an endorsement from U.S. Rep. Steve King, a kingmaker in conservative circles.
Cruz is now leading with two critical blocs in the Republican caucus electorate: evangelical conservatives (45 percent) and tea party conservatives (39 percent).
Iowa presents a "take and hold" scenario for Cruz: He's taken it; now he needs to hold it, with about 50 days to go before the first-in-the-nation vote on Feb. 1.
While other GOP presidential hopefuls have clashed with the Trump Nation head-on, Cruz's decision to stay out of Trump's way is proving to be a favorable strategy in Iowa. He's the backup choice for 49 percent of Trump supporters. And Cruz has sky-high image numbers. The percentage of likely caucusgoers who have a positive view of Cruz is now 73 percent, up 12 points from October, including 43 percent who have a very favorable impression.
On Friday, amid chatter about the race narrowing to a two-person affair, Cruz tweeted that he wasn't going to reward the establishment by engaging in a "cage match" with Trump.
But Trump, now that his political soulmate poses a threat, had no such qualms. At an event at the Iowa State Fairgrounds Friday night, Trump lit into Cruz for the first time, claiming the Texan is beholden to Big Oil and trying to plant seeds of doubt about whether a Cuban can be an evangelical Christian. Cruz's father, a conservative preacher who has spent 25 days on the Iowa campaign trail for his son, emigrated from Cuba.
In telephone interviews with the Register, Iowa Poll participants were strongly supportive of Cruz.
"I've always liked him because I feel like he stands up for what he believes in, even if the polls aren't showing that it's popular," said Cruz backer Bridget Campbell, a 42-year-old Shenandoah Republican who works from home doing health care information management. "If he believes in it, he will stand up."
Hannah Kern, 21, who works on her family's farm in rural Traer, said her mind is firmly made up to caucus for Cruz. She heard his father, Rafael Cruz, talk about his son at a home-schoolers' event near Kalona, and saw Ted Cruz in person for the first time at his religious liberty rally in August in Des Moines, where he handed out booklets on the U.S. Constitution.
"The most important thing is someone who knows what our Constitution is," Kern said.
Retired welder Larry Flanders, who lives in Russell, said he likes both Trump and Cruz, but has now settled on Cruz.
"What put the frosting on the cake is when he backed up Trump on what Trump said" about various topics such as immigration and fighting ISIS, Flanders said. Plus, Cruz knows the inner workings of Congress and is familiar with "how bad the White House is."
"Either one of them can get it across, but Trump's pretty blunt," Flanders said. "Cruz can tell you off and not hurt your feelings."
21-point jump is huge
Just how stunning is Republican Ted Cruz's rise to the top?
No one else has made such an impressive leap in five caucus cycles, Iowa Poll records show.
In the Dec. 7-10 Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll, the Texas U.S. senator has vaulted 21 percentage points since the last poll, in October.
The leggiest upward leap in the 2012 Iowa race was Republican Mitt Romney's 8-point move from 16 percent to 24 percent in the final poll before the vote.
The biggest collapse: Republican Newt Gingrich, who lost 13 points (dropping from 25 percent to 12 percent) in that same final poll.
During the 2008 race, Republican Mike Huckabee surged 17 points between an October poll and a late November poll, moving into a lead he did not relinquish.
In 2004, Democrat John Edwards jumped from 5 percent to 22 percent, also a 17-point leap, in the final poll before the vote. And Democrat John Kerry rose 10 points, from 15 percent to 25 percent.
— Jennifer Jacobs
No rush to vow loyalty
The vast majority of likely Iowa Republicans caucusgoers aren't willing yet to pledge fidelity, in writing, to any candidate.
At campaign events, aides routinely circulate among Iowans, asking them to put in writing that they promise to caucus for their candidate.
But 95 percent of likely caucusgoers say they haven't signed a pledge card this cycle, the Dec. 7-10 Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics survey shows. Just 4 percent have put a pen to paper.
One percent say they've signed a pledge, then reneged and aligned with a rival.
About a quarter of likely caucusgoers have gone to a candidate event, including 9 percent who have been to two or three, and 9 percent who have been to one.
— Jennifer Jacobs
About those backup choices
Among those who say Ted Cruz is their first choice for president, 27 percent say they would never support Donald Trump.
And 21 percent of Trump voters say they'd never support Cruz, the Dec. 7-10 Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll shows.
Advantage Cruz.
Among Trump supporters, a strong number say Cruz is their second choice (49 percent).
Ben Carson's second-choice votes go mostly to Cruz (35 percent), with Trump getting 17 percent.
Carson and Trump are nearly tied for Cruz supporters' second choice, 26 percent and 25 percent respectively.
Advantage Cruz.
It's rare, but there are some likely GOP caucusgoers split between establishment and anti-establishment candidates.
For example, Jeb Bush gets 8 percent of Carson backers' second-choice votes, 4 percent of Cruz's, and 3 percent of Trump's.
— Jennifer Jacobs
About the poll
The Iowa Poll, conducted Dec. 7-10 for The Des Moines Register and Bloomberg Politics by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, is based on telephone interviews with 400 registered Iowa voters who say they definitely or probably will attend the 2016 Republican caucuses and 404 registered voters who say they definitely or probably will attend the 2016 Democratic caucuses.
Interviewers contacted 2,635 randomly selected active voters from the Iowa secretary of state’s voter registration list by telephone. Responses were adjusted by age, sex, and congressional district to reflect all active voters in the voter registration list.
Questions based on the subsamples of 404 likely Democratic caucus attendees or 400 likely Republican caucus attendees each have a maximum margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points. This means that if this survey were repeated using the same questions and the same methodology, 19 times out of 20, the findings would not vary from the percentages shown here by more than plus or minus 4.9 percentage points. Results based on smaller samples of respondents — such as by gender or age — have a larger margin of error.
Dammit... Rubio needs to start show moar life.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/12/12 23:15:18
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Coulda fooled me by your vigorous defense of anything related to the Clintons.
Are we back to the point where stating that a given argument is a poor one tacitly indicates that a particular, entirely separate, argument is a good one? Because that's not a good point to be at.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2015/12/12 23:21:20
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Coulda fooled me by your vigorous defense of anything related to the Clintons.
Are we back to the point where stating that a given argument is a poor one tacitly indicates that a particular, entirely separate, argument is a good one? Because that's not a good point to be at.
States Department: Hey... we can't find any correspondence on Clinton's IT admin during her tenure.
Congress/FBI: Hey... IT dude, we wanna talk to you.
IT dude: I plead the 5th.
I said:
whembly wrote: So... Hillary's IT staffer ain't talk'n to no one: **** posted article from politico ****
Then I said after that article (notice the yellow highlights):
Give him immunity Grassley... otherwise, if the FBI finds something... then we can say...
(•_•) < ) )╯Obstruction / \
\(•_•) ( ( > Of / \
(•_•) < ) )> Justice / \
That's what I said.
But you, Kan, and Scooty want to dogpile me by posting inane retorts.
Here's the poll itself. Only 400 likely Republican caucus attendees, so I wouldn't be too worried if I were Trump.
Honestly, what I find most interesting about the poll is that Trump crushed Cruz on several of the issue questions. This was most notable everything related to the economy but also terrorism, and immigration.
States Department: Hey... we can't find any correspondence on Clinton's IT admin during her tenure.
Congress/FBI: Hey... IT dude, we wanna talk to you.
IT dude: I plead the 5th.
Yes, I know the sequence of events. His decision to plead the 5th was a wise one, as Pagliano could easily have incriminated himself by unknowingly providing false testimony due to a poor recollection of seemingly minor events which happened years in the past. From his perspective, assuming he wants to limit his own liability, it makes sense to take advantage of every protection available to him; especially given the hostility of his interlocutors.
But you, Kan, and Scooty want to dogpile me by posting inane retorts.
When your initial post is primarily composed of bad ACSII art you really have no room to refer to anyone else's comments as inane. If nothing else you failed to make clear the argument you were making, and it did indeed appear that you might be claiming that Pagliano could be subject to prosecution for obstruction of justice due to pleading the Fifth. When called on this, rather than clarifying your point, you became defensive and lashed out. I even, politely, asked you if your original post was in reference to the Department of State, as opposed to Pagliano; a question which you've met with the above remark.
Anyway, I'll ask again: Who would you hypothetically accuse of obstruction of justice?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/12 23:53:35
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2015/12/13 00:04:35
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Then I said after that article (notice the yellow highlights):
You're still wrong. Pleading the 5th is not obstruction of justice even if the police find something despite your refusal to cooperate. It isn't obstruction of justice unless you're actively interfering with the investigation, not merely sitting there silently and not helping with it.
And really, I don't see why this is at all controversial. "Don't talk to the police" is a good rule to follow. Even if you aren't currently a suspect you might become one, and even completely innocent people can get themselves into trouble by talking. The only thing you should ever say in any investigation is "speak to my lawyer". And being on the D end of the political scale instead of the R end doesn't change this.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2015/12/13 01:45:46
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Then I said after that article (notice the yellow highlights):
You're still wrong. Pleading the 5th is not obstruction of justice even if the police find something despite your refusal to cooperate. It isn't obstruction of justice unless you're actively interfering with the investigation, not merely sitting there silently and not helping with it.
And really, I don't see why this is at all controversial. "Don't talk to the police" is a good rule to follow. Even if you aren't currently a suspect you might become one, and even completely innocent people can get themselves into trouble by talking. The only thing you should ever say in any investigation is "speak to my lawyer". And being on the D end of the political scale instead of the R end doesn't change this.
I actually agree with that...
When I said, *if* the FBI finds something illegal, most likely it'll be under obstruction of justice. That has no bearing on whether or not he plead the fifth.
When the feds come knocking on your door... you ALWAYS don't answer gak and get a lawyer.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/12/13 01:58:52
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote:Coulda fooled me by your vigorous defense of anything related to the Clintons.
Sigh... there it is again.
Have you forgotten the probably dozens of times that I've said I don't like Hillary Clinton or are you just going to ignore that so you can complain that you're being picked on? If you think the dude is guilty of whatever you think he's guilty of, that fine... I really don't give a feth because I'm not going to change your mind; literally everyone on Dakka knows you have a raging hate-boner for Hillary Clinton. However, when you when you say dumb gak like, "Oh, I assume nothing" and then list a bunch of things you assume, you lose what credibility you had to start with.
whembly wrote:But you, Kan, and Scooty want to dogpile me by posting inane retorts.
Well, I guess that answers my first question. Carry on.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/13 12:45:22
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/12/13 02:53:30
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: So are you choosing to ignore that sentence right before that cutesy ascii pic?
Because, what you just did there is pull specific parts of my posts and responded in a manner of what you believe in the worst of me.
No, what I did was ask you to clarify your argument while pointing out that you have no room to refer the comments of others as "inane". I don't really care if you acknowledge the latter, but it is bewildering that you steadfastly refuse to do the former.
And, for the record, your statement about the FBI does not help to answer my question.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2015/12/13 06:08:58
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: So are you choosing to ignore that sentence right before that cutesy ascii pic?
Because, what you just did there is pull specific parts of my posts and responded in a manner of what you believe in the worst of me.
No, what I did was ask you to clarify your argument while pointing out that you have no room to refer the comments of others as "inane". I don't really care if you acknowledge the latter, but it is bewildering that you steadfastly refuse to do the former.
And, for the record, your statement about the FBI does not help to answer my question.
Again... I refer to you my highlighted portion in my previous post that you chose to leave out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: Obama broke a promise? That... makes him no different than any other president. What's your argument?
Sure... it's an American pastime to call out their president's BS. Unless, you think Obama deserve special treatment...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/13 06:11:08
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/12/13 06:12:07
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
When I said, *if* the FBI finds something illegal, most likely it'll be under obstruction of justice. That has no bearing on whether or not he plead the fifth.
Well, steadfastly refused to do so until now. The above makes a lot more sense than your first post, though I now see what you were trying to say. The text of your original post reads as though you were claiming Pagliano should be charged with obstruction of justice, if the FBI finds something implicating him, because he plead the fifth.
Again... I refer to you my highlighted portion in my previous post that you chose to leave out.
The problem is that you replaced a bunch of important words with ellipses. The pseudo-sentence "Give him immunity Grassley...otherwise, if the FBI find something...then we can say..." is really unclear, particularly given that an obstruction of justice charge would rely on Pagliano doing something unusual with respect to Department of State policy of the time. Moreover, the phrase "then we can say" seems to indicate anything the FBI might find would lead to an obstruction of justice charge, something which could only occur if an action Pagliano has already taken* render it necessary.
*In this case, given available information, invoking his 5th Amendment Rights.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/13 06:24:39
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2015/12/13 06:29:14
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
When I said, *if* the FBI finds something illegal, most likely it'll be under obstruction of justice. That has no bearing on whether or not he plead the fifth.
Well, steadfastly refused to do so until now. The above makes a lot more sense than your first post, though I now see what you were trying to say. The text of your original post reads as though you were claiming Pagliano should be charged with obstruction of justice, if the FBI finds something implicating him, because he plead the fifth.
Right.
Pagliano went to his lawyer first... then, under instructions by his lawyer informed the FBI/Congress-critters that he'll invoke his 5th amendment rights in any questioning over HRC's email saga.
To be honest, Paglinao did exactly what he's supposed to do... hence why Grassely's potential immunity offer should be considered. Pagliano is most likely *the guy* who knows who authorized HRC's private email server (which we now know was against policy).
I work in the IT industry and it boggles my mind that it's accepted that an institution like our own Federal Goverment (the friggin STATES Dept) "can't find" email correspondences on official accounts. It's either sheer incompetent or someone *literally* had to purposely scrub such information if you had the appropriate admin-privileges. Which is why I brought up potential obstruction of justice charges.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/13 06:33:20
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/12/13 07:43:47
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
To be honest, Paglinao did exactly what he's supposed to do... hence why Grassely's potential immunity offer should be considered. Pagliano is most likely *the guy* who knows who authorized HRC's private email server (which we now know was against policy).
The existence of the email server was not against policy, in fact it was explicitly allowed. It was advised that Federal officials should only use their official accounts, so that their communications could be reviewed, but it was not required.
What we know to be against policy is the use of a private device to receive classified information...at least assuming the information was classified at the time.
I work in the IT industry and it boggles my mind that it's accepted that an institution like our own Federal Goverment (the friggin STATES Dept) "can't find" email correspondences on official accounts. It's either sheer incompetent or someone *literally* had to purposely scrub such information if you had the appropriate admin-privileges. Which is why I brought up potential obstruction of justice charges.
It probably isn't the result of incompetence. It also probably isn't the result of malfeasance. It is probably the result of Congress taking forever to properly regulate, through legislation, how emails are dealt with.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/13 08:10:34
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2015/12/13 10:22:47
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
