1. Computer problem? Tech Support Guy is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations. Click here to join today! If you're new to Tech Support Guy, we highly recommend that you visit our Guide for New Members.

HRC, FBI, DOJ, Etc.

Discussion in 'Controversial Topics' started by Chawbacon, Feb 13, 2019.

Advertisement
  1. Chawbacon

    Chawbacon Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2018
    Messages:
    540
    First Name:
    Jack
    Just a thread to annotate new information concerning allegations of misconduct between HRC, the FBI, and the DOJ. I guess allegations concerning the Obama White House may eventually show up.

    So lets start with this article that came out two days ago.
    FBI scrambled to respond to Hillary Clinton lawyer amid Weiner laptop review, newly released emails show
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ne...d-to-clinton-lawyer-amid-weiner-laptop-review
    I find it extremely suspicious when our top level government agencies are attempting to barter FBI slots for overseas assignments, in exchange to modify an existing classification code on an existing e-mail. The intent here was to redact the information within the e-mail and keep it from seeing the light of day! Thankfully the FBI did the right thing and refused to change the classifications.

    Also...

    It is disconcerting when the FBI makes statements that ALL the documents were reviewed, which later appears to be a misrepresentation of what occurred. I fully understand the use of technology to assist with search criteria; but, this misstatement is just embarrassing for the FBI and it could have been avoided by simply explaining the initial methodology up-front. Now additional conspiracy theories will run amok.
     
  2. Johnny b

    Johnny b

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    6,061
    First Name:
    John
  3. Johnny b

    Johnny b

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    6,061
    First Name:
    John
    Conspiracy theories often entail a fun factor.
    From the silly to the sublime, often what's left out is that funny 'gotcha' that stands out like a sore thumb when revealed.

    Aside from claims of 'apparently sent' to 'an apparent attempt' to considerations not possible because of 'redactions', what stood out missing in your copy and paste was this line:

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ne...d-to-clinton-lawyer-amid-weiner-laptop-review

    And to make matters even more confusing, the partial reprint of that Fox article at Alex Jones' Infowars site:
    https://www.infowars.com/hillarys-fbi-new-docs-suggest-agency-collusion-to-protect-clinton/

    ended that partial reprint of the Fox article with

    (there was a link to 'the rest of the story' at the Fox web site)

    So, what did we learn? 2 things.

    1. Nothing nefarious happened and suspicions were built " from claims of 'apparently sent' to 'an apparent attempt' to considerations not possible because of 'redactions' "

    2. I suspect you've been reading Alex Jones again. :D



    I've been wondering where crazy Alex was getting his material and now we know. :D
     
    valis likes this.
  4. Chawbacon

    Chawbacon Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2018
    Messages:
    540
    First Name:
    Jack
    Judicial Watch Uncovers More Classified Emails in Hillary Clinton’s Unsecure Email System
    https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=press release
    A large amount of relevant information on the Judicial Watch web site. This in particular jumped out at me as a big problem for Hillary.
    I also found these little tidbits to be interesting... Is this the start of documented Russian collusion, or is it a legitimate meeting with a Pro-Putin oligarch? We will have to wait and see.
     
  5. Johnny b

    Johnny b

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    6,061
    First Name:
    John
    I'm outraged, how in the world can the Clintons get away with that :mad:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch

    Oh yeah. I forgot about that.

    Never mind :)
     
    Chawbacon likes this.
  6. Chawbacon

    Chawbacon Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2018
    Messages:
    540
    First Name:
    Jack
    Although using Wiki as an authoritative source is negligent at best... I concur. :)

    However, in this instance we are talking about real documents (with real classification markings), that were knowingly sent to unclassified devices, emails that were supposed to have been turned over to the FBI (not destroyed)... Blah, you know the rest.
     
  7. Johnny b

    Johnny b

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    6,061
    First Name:
    John
    Have you read the ones posted?
    I read a few, but looked more like 'Hello and I'll see yous'.

    Anything there of actual Importance concerning security issues?
     
  8. Johnny b

    Johnny b

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    6,061
    First Name:
    John

    Better than Fox news :D
     
  9. Chawbacon

    Chawbacon Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2018
    Messages:
    540
    First Name:
    Jack
    Actually... Yes. Unless this turns out to be a complete fabrication by Judicial Watch. Per regulations concerning the release of documents containing classified information, the classified portions must be redacted. In this case the redacted areas are in the form blank boxes.

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...JW-v-State-HRC-emails-Oct-18-00687-pg-374.pdf
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...JW-v-State-HRC-emails-Oct-18-00687-pg-375.pdf
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...-v-State-HRC-emails-Oct-18-00687-pg-79-81.pdf
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...-State-HRC-emails-Oct-18-00687-pg-673-674.pdf
     
  10. Johnny b

    Johnny b

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    6,061
    First Name:
    John
    Looked at your links.
    Not much can be determined with the redactions.

    Personally, at this point I don't care.
    Too much of the government has been found to use improper channels.

    If the redactions prove to have security issues, Clinton has a problem.
    Again, I really don't care.
    I didn't vote for her because I didn't think she was right for the job.
    But not because of emails.

    Somehow, many people seem to forget her performance concerning Benghazi in 2012.
    We lost an Ambassador and she proceeded with a coverup.
    That was on her watch as Secretary of State.
    And she definitely lied about the incident and her lack of support for those that worked under her.
    All that was whitewashed, imo.

    I simply do not trust her with the safety of the US.
    Nor Trump ;) But he's the Prez and she's a loser, pfft!

    The email issues seem cs to me.
     
  11. Sponsor

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 733,556 other people just like you!

Short URL to this thread: https://techguy.org/1223081

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice