Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thats not the point. The point is people who claim to be anti-establishment and anti-mainstream media are getting their news from the WALL STREET JOURNAL which is probably the biggest establishment and mainstream media source around. They are just so confused and contradictory, they dont know which way is up or down.
Thats not the point. The point is people who claim to be anti-establishment and anti-mainstream media are getting their news from the WALL STREET JOURNAL which is probably the biggest establishment and mainstream media source around. They are just so confused and contradictory, they dont know which way is up or down.
Let me get this straight, Dex-
In your mind, if someone is a trump supporter, they should not read The Wall Street Journal? If not, what is the "Dex-approved" reading list for all of us so that we can stay in your good graces?
I promise I will never read the Wall Street Journal again. I read USA Today also. Is that okay? I listen to NPR and BBC on the radio- approved or not? I watch PBS usually on tv- good or bad? I look at Beitbart on the internet- bad (of course)?
Even though Guccifer hacked Hillary's email, I don't think anyone will care. It has been suggested that the Russians, Iranians, and Chinese know what was on her server as well, setting up a ticklish situation if Hillary is elected POTUS. Most of the electorate are federal dependents who cannot, or will not, read. Hillary's emails could show that she is a Chinese agent, blew up the WTC, and crucufied Christ and no democrat would care.
The Obama administration is very good at hiding corrupt acts and I have no doubt Obama will make sure that nothing at all is done to Hillary after the FBI investigation ends, whether she is guilty of a crime or not. Among the dems, laws are for little people and not for the Clintons.
Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP - port 3389) also known as terminal services, provides remote administrative access through a networked visual interface window. It allows an admin to remotely connect to a computer and take it over.
If you leave this service exposed to the internet, a 0day vulnerability could allow an attacker to gain admin access over the machine.
Some related info from a previous post including discussion about why Hillary's server was likely penetrated between 2009-2013, not just by Guccifer.
In your mind, if someone is a trump supporter, they should not read The Wall Street Journal? If not, what is the "Dex-approved" reading list for all of us so that we can stay in your good graces?
I promise I will never read the Wall Street Journal again. I read USA Today also. Is that okay? I listen to NPR and BBC on the radio- approved or not? I watch PBS usually on tv- good or bad? I look at Beitbart on the internet- bad (of course)?
Im saying every time a WSJ or NBC poll comes out that shows Trump losing, or any time the Washington Post writes an anti-Trump piece, all the Trump followers pile on about how they are owned by liberals and they are mainstream media who can't be trusted. Then they say something anti-Hillary and all the sudden Trump followers are shouting it from the rooftops like its gospel. Trump followers and so confused and contradictory.
Hillary's basis for criminal liability (if any, of course) is that she exposed classified information to the risk of unauthorized access on her private server. Whether or not someone actually accessed said information is not relevant to her own criminal culpability. Think about that.
Of course, if someone can prove that Guccifer or any other hacker accessed her server, that is very disconcerting to the public. Law enforcement have said that they have not seen evidence of any hacking, but who knows. . .
What continues to elude me, if I would have done anything closely related.....my security clearance would have been suspended on the spot, yet the left agrees with what is going on.....
Holy crap people, if you are taking notes in a meeting that is deemed secret, you have to classify those notes as secret.....by writing "secret" at the top...
I would not have a job, nor even be thought about....much less what is going on now....
Let's put this "intent" nonsense to rest once and for all. Again, from your article.
“The extent to which the person intended to remove classified documents is irrelevant,” he said in an email to The Hill. “All that matters for strict legal purposes of culpability is whether the person, by virtue of their official position, came into possession of classified information and affirmatively removed the information to an unauthorized location (i.e., the private server).
“Whether the person knew or suspected the information was classified is irrelevant.”
Don't think it is dishonest to omit the following sentence which immediately follows language you boldfaced above: "Other legal experts questioned the claim, hinting at the legal minefield that could await any potential criminal case."
So it's one attorney's (Bradley Moss) opinion versus multiple experts' opinions. Moss is not even a partner in a small firm, Mark Zaid.
"Mens rea" is relevant to any criminal law, other than certain limited situations (e.g., statutory rape).
Don't think it is dishonest to omit the following sentence which immediately follows language you boldfaced above: "Other legal experts questioned the claim, hinting at the legal minefield that could await any potential criminal case."
So it's one attorney's (Bradley Moss) opinion versus multiple experts' opinions. Moss is not even a partner in a small firm, Mark Zaid.
"Mens rea" is relevant to any criminal law, other than certain limited situations (e.g., statutory rape).
Your link notes that her intent to mishandle classified information is irrelevant to some laws and she could face misdemeanor charges. Yet democrats keep parroting the "no intent" BS.
It seems like Hillary's defense keeps evolving.
She only used 1 device so it made sense to have only 1 email, whoops multiple devices were used. She erred on the side of caution and turned over all work related emails. No she didn't. She did it out of convenience...lol. She didn't send any classified info. Nope. She didn't send any info that was classified at the time. Nope. She didn't intentionally send any classified info. WTF?! Her server was not compromised. It literally had NO security for about 3 months and apparently was Guccifered after it had security!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.