Durham, under pressure to wrap up Investigation, could 'punt' to after Election Day: source

#277
#277
BowlBrother85 said:
I think you are reaching to make the story more relevant to Democrats, than what it appears to be (at least as of now). If it just involves Hillary Clinton and her 2016 Presidential Campaign, then it won't make much of a splash. It is fodder for Republicans, but there isn't any reason for Democrats to pay attention to it. Nobody cares about Hillary Clinton anymore.
Click to expand...
It still does prove Trump was right all along as were a lot of other people that people like you mocked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, UT_Dutchman and Caculator
#278
#278
lawgator1 said:
I'm not surprised by Fox and Trump and his minions overstating the filing. You may recall, I asked here what exactly was meant by the allegation in the pleadings, i.e. is the claim that they breached security of emails, or is the claim that they mined the internet for publicly available information.

Sounds more and more like the latter.

Again, not surprised that Fox has completely blown it out of proportion.
Click to expand...
You mean like you do every time Trump farts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, UT_Dutchman and SpaceCoastVol
#280
#280
ButchPlz said:
You've flopped from "it was all legal access" to saying "dissemination made it illegal" (which is also false, as any access for unauthorized use is illegal, dissemination or not). You even gave a personal use example from your little world!

You literally don't know what you're talking about, and are coming in and pretending to be an expert. Again, bank teller experience is irrelevant to this situation.

EDIT: and the scenario: in your example, had the person making the access not actually put it in court (or wherever she may have sent it, in this case), and her intent had been known, what would have happened? The distribution did not make the crime.
Click to expand...
Without the dissemination of information, there would have been no proof the access itself had even happened. The particular system she was using to access her ex-husband's data leaves no footprints concerning who has been there.

... and just because you have said it about 10 times now jackass, I have never worked as a bank teller - but I wouldn't be ashamed of that if I had. I was employed in multiple capacities at First Horizon/First Tennessee Bank from collections agent to financial services rep to mortgage loan officer.
 
#281
#281
BowlBrother85 said:
Without the dissemination of information, there would have been no proof the access itself had even happened. The particular system she was using to access her ex-husband's data leaves no footprints concerning who has been there.

... and just because you have said it about 10 times now jackass, I have never worked as a bank teller - but I wouldn't be ashamed of that if I had. I was employed in multiple capacities at First Horizon/First Tennessee Bank from collections agent to financial services rep to mortgage loan officer.
Click to expand...
Ah, so now you've flip flopped around again. The dissemination only left proof, evidence- it didn't make the access a crime.
 
#282
#282
ButchPlz said:
Ah, so now you've flip flopped around again. The dissemination only left proof, evidence- it didn't make the access a crime.
Click to expand...
I don't think we are really at odds over this. What you are calling "flip flopping" is really just a difference of semantics, and how I have articulated the point I was trying to make. You come across as self-important, snobbish, uppity and condescending.
 
Last edited:
#287
#287
SpaceCoastVol said:
😂
Click to expand...
National Archives: Trump took classified items to Mar-a-Lago

Trump took records with him to Mar-a-Lago that contained classified information, National Archives says

National Archives: Trump removed classified documents from White House

Archives confirms Trump records at Mar-a-Lago included classified documents

White House records taken by Trump contained classified information, National Archives confirms

National Archives acknowledges it found classified documents in boxes taken from Mar-a-Lago - CNNPolitics

If the Clintons had (allegedly) done this, I suspect political right-wingers would consider it to potentially be a serious breach of protocol involving national security. I remember the brouhaha over Hillary Clinton's e-mails. Don't tell me that you have a double standard for Trump now ....
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#288
#288
BowlBrother85 said:
National Archives: Trump took classified items to Mar-a-Lago

Trump took records with him to Mar-a-Lago that contained classified information, National Archives says

National Archives: Trump removed classified documents from White House

Archives confirms Trump records at Mar-a-Lago included classified documents

White House records taken by Trump contained classified information, National Archives confirms

National Archives acknowledges it found classified documents in boxes taken from Mar-a-Lago - CNNPolitics

If the Clintons had (allegedly) done this, I suspect political right-wingers would consider it to potentially be a serious breach of protocol involving national security. I remember the brouhaha over Hillary Clinton's e-mails. Don't tell me that you have a double standard for Trump now ....
Click to expand...
I'm still of the opinion of lock them all up, but I'd be remiss if I didn't point out one of your favorite tactics of "that isn't what this thread is about!". This thread is about Hillary Clinton and her bad actions, not Donald Trump. If you want to drone on about Trump, go to one of the many threads about him.

Turnabout being fair play and all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ButchPlz and hUTch2002
#289
#289
Weezer said:
I'm still of the opinion of lock them all up, but I'd be remiss if I didn't point out one of your favorite tactics of "that isn't what this thread is about!". This thread is about Hillary Clinton and her bad actions, not Donald Trump. If you want to drone on about Trump, go to one of the many threads about him.

Turnabout being fair play and all.
Click to expand...
Actually, this thread specifically concerns Special Counsel John Durham's investigation into the origins of the Russian government/2016 Donald Trump Presidential Campaign collusion allegations, and the subsequent Special Counsel probe headed by Robert Mueller which ensued. Aspects of John Durham's investigation obviously do involve the 2016 Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign, but it's also more broad than that.

@SpaceCoastVol appeared to be making light of the recent reports concerning Donald Trump's mishandling of classified documents, and my post responded to that inconsistent stance. It wasn't just a "what-about-ism" thrown in from out of the wild blue yonder ... as some posters who shall remain nameless, have been known to do when trying to change the subject .... LOL.
 
#290
#290
BowlBrother85 said:
Without the dissemination, there is no illegality. Yes, it is basic stuff... and you are basically an idiot.
Click to expand...
So if the contractor was caught with info they had stored on their private server and it’s info they shouldn’t have in their possession you’re saying the theft of that information isn’t illegal? I’m not an expert in this field at all but common sense says they will have violated their contract and they’re guilty of theft. Stealing is stealing. If you see I have $1,000 sitting on my dresser and you take $100 but don’t spend it, it’s still theft.
 
#291
#291
hUTch2002 said:
So if the contractor was caught with info they had stored on their private server and it’s info they shouldn’t have in their possession you’re saying the theft of that information isn’t illegal? I’m not an expert in this field at all but common sense says they will have violated their contract and they’re guilty of theft. Stealing is stealing. If you see I have $1,000 sitting on my dresser and you take $100 but don’t spend it, it’s still theft.
Click to expand...
If that is the case, then yes, that is theft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hUTch2002
#292
#292
BowlBrother85 said:
Actually, this thread specifically concerns Special Counsel John Durham's investigation into the origins of the Russian government/2016 Donald Trump Presidential Campaign collusion allegations, and the subsequent Special Counsel probe headed by Robert Mueller which ensued. Aspects of John Durham's investigation obviously do involve the 2016 Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign, but it's also more broad than that.

@SpaceCoastVol appeared to be making light of the recent reports concerning Donald Trump's mishandling of classified documents, and my post responded to that inconsistent stance. It wasn't just a "what-about-ism" thrown in from out of the wild blue yonder ... as some posters who shall remain nameless, have been known to do when trying to change the subject .... LOL.
Click to expand...
"What-about-isms" are a natural part of conversation. The people that generally scream about it are the ones that don't want to have an honest, across the spectrum conversation on politics but would instead rather regurgitate the talking points of the party they have chosen allegiance to. But I won't mention any names.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ButchPlz and hUTch2002
#293
#293
SpaceCoastVol said:
The last one was free and fair... Why else would the leftists be clamoring for election reform? Most popular president ever, amiright?
Click to expand...
He did have the most votes caste for him ever, by a huge margin.
But we all know that was largely an "anybody but Trump" result.
 
#295
#295
ButchPlz said:
Fundamental.

Edit: To clarify, the galaxy brain you responded to apparently used to work at a bank. Ask him what happens if an individual charged with maintaining or handling bank data accidentally lets some loose. Now ask what happens if they do it on purpose.
Click to expand...

Let's use another scenario. We have several locked offices at our company. If you let someone in an office, then not only is the person that let you in the office in trouble but you are to since you knowingly entered an area where you shouldn't have been.

Durham not using inflammatory language makes this issue no less agregious. The Durham report is not final. It's clear it's slow and deliberate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ButchPlz
#296
#296
BreatheUT said:
Let's use another scenario. We have several locked offices at our company. If you let someone in an office, then not only is the person that let you in the office in trouble but you are to since you knowingly entered an area where you shouldn't have been.

Durham not using inflammatory language makes this issue no less agregious. The Durham report is not final. It's clear it's slow and deliberate.
Click to expand...
Even without letting the other person in, being in a locked/secured area when you're not supposed to be- dissemination or not- is going to land you in trouble. The same rules apply for data access. This stuff is, again, not hard, yet this guy is claiming it's only a crime because the data was shared. It's fundamentally incorrect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT
#297
#297
BowlBrother85 said:
I don't think we are really at odds over this. What you are calling "flip flopping" is really just a difference of semantics, and how I have articulated the point I was trying to make. You come across as self-important, snobbish, uppity and condescending.
Click to expand...
It's not a difference of semantics. You hold the belief that only dissemination made the access a crime. You're wrong. That's the story. Bye bye now.
 
#298
#298
ButchPlz said:
It's not a difference of semantics. You hold the belief that only dissemination made the access a crime. You're wrong. That's the story. Bye bye now.
Click to expand...
I hold the belief that Neustar's access to those servers had been authorized. Are you really telling another person what they believe?
 
#300
#300
hUTch2002 said:
I’m sure CNN is working on another, “Is that all Durham has?” article like they wrote when his first indictment came out.
Click to expand...
CNN will do exactly what Fox News has done in the past, when they want to discredit a story that they don't like covering.

CNN will focus only on the one claim from right-wing, media news reporting (the Fox News article which has been linked below this paragraph), that they can easily prove was wrong - that the most recent John Durham court filing had found that the 2016 Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign paid for information obtained through the authorized maintenance of servers at Trump Tower and The White House. CNN will then try to use that one falsehood to discredit the entire story itself, as being either a "hoax" or "fake news," from biased, right-wing, media news sources. CNN will try to make the entire story more about Fox News and their misinformation, rather than any possible wrongdoing by the Clinton campaign. Will they be successful in that effort? It's hard to say as of right now, but Fox News has done a lot of damage to the overall credibility of this story going forward. There is no doubt about that.

Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia, Durham finds

^^^^ Right-Wing Misinformation ^^^^
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top