100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Clinton emails could have compromised CIA names | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Experts: Clinton emails could have compromised CIA names In 2014, the State Department's unclassified email system was breached by hackers with links to Russia. They stole an unspecified number of emails. The hack was so deep that State's email system had to be cut off from the internet while experts worked to eliminate the infestation. Baker points out another instance where Clinton's server might have been hacked. A March 2, 2009, email warned against State Department officials using Blackberries. Eric Boswell, assistant secretary of state, says the "vulnerabilities and risks associated with the use of Blackberries ... considerably outweigh their convenience." Nine days later, another email states that Clinton approached Boswell and says she "gets" the risk. The email also said: "Her attention was drawn to the sentence that indicates we (the diplomatic security office officials) have intelligence concerning this vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia." Clinton traveled to China, Indonesia, Japan and South Korea in February 2009. http://www.yahoo.com/news/experts-clinton-emails-could-compromised-161527775.html |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RebelArcher
on
Wed 06/08/16 02:44 PM
|
 signed, sHitllary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay. Again, still waiting for evidence.
This points out that hacks have taken place all over the government. That's it. Nothing new. And nothing YET, directly and actually linked to Clinton. Note the careful use of the word "MIGHT." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Wed 06/08/16 04:03 PM
|
|
Okay. Again, still waiting for evidence. This points out that hacks have taken place all over the government. That's it. Nothing new. And nothing YET, directly and actually linked to Clinton. Note the careful use of the word "MIGHT." And your point? Perhaps you carry the guilty conscience and need to justify that she lacks? Perhaps the rest of us are just uneducated eaters without the ability to think and determine for ourselves and need your vast knowledge to tell us how to think? I do believe after all that the header said "could have"..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay. Again, still waiting for evidence. This points out that hacks have taken place all over the government. That's it. Nothing new. And nothing YET, directly and actually linked to Clinton. Note the careful use of the word "MIGHT." 13 Hours! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How long did it take Ford to pardon Nixon?
Take that number and divide by the number of times Hillery and Obama have lied to the public. Add "For the good of the country" and a "Nothing to see here folks!". Add "Anyone can vote without any form of ID!" You get a United States without a Constitution ... not that it hasn't already been torn to shreds. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay. Again, still waiting for evidence. This points out that hacks have taken place all over the government. That's it. Nothing new. And nothing YET, directly and actually linked to Clinton. Note the careful use of the word "MIGHT." And your point? Perhaps you carry the guilty conscience and need to justify that she lacks? Perhaps the rest of us are just uneducated eaters without the ability to think and determine for ourselves and need your vast knowledge to tell us how to think? I do believe after all that the header said "could have"..... I take it you don't support the American legal system, or the concept of declaring someone guilty only AFTER there are facts to prove it. That's all I'm arguing for. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Thu 06/09/16 07:05 AM
|
|
Okay. Again, still waiting for evidence. This points out that hacks have taken place all over the government. That's it. Nothing new. And nothing YET, directly and actually linked to Clinton. Note the careful use of the word "MIGHT." And your point? Perhaps you carry the guilty conscience and need to justify that she lacks? Perhaps the rest of us are just uneducated eaters without the ability to think and determine for ourselves and need your vast knowledge to tell us how to think? I do believe after all that the header said "could have"..... I take it you don't support the American legal system, or the concept of declaring someone guilty only AFTER there are facts to prove it. That's all I'm arguing for. You are in the wrong arena for that argument. This is an opinion forum on a dating site, not the SCOTUS. People here have opinions which they are entitled too, even you. When you constantly look down your nose at someone else for their opinions, belittle their choice to believe what they bring to the conversation, then you have no right to condemn anyone or their beliefs with the narrow view attained by that angle of sight. I fought for peoples rights including my own. Not a big deal on my part but many of my friends gave all in that defense. So before you question anyone's belief in the rights of others you might respect to consider a few in your own view. I have a problem with someone wanting to govern my country who is constantly mired in scandal, whose poor judgements cost the lives of 4 Americans, who thinks themselves above the practices of security measures set forth by a body of government they work in and risking my country's security with the excuse of "convenience", and decides what the American people deserve rather than hold as law and right. Yeah, I don't like or trust the Clintons, but that is my right. Don't care much for Trump either, but if you want to condemn and call peoples choice a mistake, look back 7 1/2 years, not try to predict the future Clinton shrieks that Trump wants to take our country back, destroying what has been created by the Dems the last 7 1/2 years that they call progress. When I look at the world today I say "GO DONALD!" because if this is progress it needs to be reset because nobody but the banks, corporations, unions and our enemies are better off today than they were 8 or even 20 years ago! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay. Again, still waiting for evidence. This points out that hacks have taken place all over the government. That's it. Nothing new. And nothing YET, directly and actually linked to Clinton. Note the careful use of the word "MIGHT." And your point? Perhaps you carry the guilty conscience and need to justify that she lacks? Perhaps the rest of us are just uneducated eaters without the ability to think and determine for ourselves and need your vast knowledge to tell us how to think? I do believe after all that the header said "could have"..... I take it you don't support the American legal system, or the concept of declaring someone guilty only AFTER there are facts to prove it. That's all I'm arguing for. if their wasn't any facts, she wouldn't be under an investigation right now.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know what I'm kinda worried about? Well, not really worried so much as "wouldn't it be funny" I ask myself.
This turning into kind of a "ACA is not a tax! It's not a tax I swear! Oh wait, it's legal as a tax? Well, ummm...it's a tax but it's not raising taxes and costs will go down!" thing. Clinton emails could have compromised CIA names Something like: "I didn't do anything wrong! What difference does it make! It's perfectly legal! Oh...it leaked classified stuff? Hmm...I meant to do it! Like Snowden! I wanted to be a patriot, I was just too worried and didn't want to admit it because that guy had to flee the country and I love my country too much! Yeah, that was it the whole time, I swear. I'm a whistleblower. I'm a hero." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay. Again, still waiting for evidence. This points out that hacks have taken place all over the government. That's it. Nothing new. And nothing YET, directly and actually linked to Clinton. Note the careful use of the word "MIGHT." And your point? Perhaps you carry the guilty conscience and need to justify that she lacks? Perhaps the rest of us are just uneducated eaters without the ability to think and determine for ourselves and need your vast knowledge to tell us how to think? I do believe after all that the header said "could have"..... I take it you don't support the American legal system, or the concept of declaring someone guilty only AFTER there are facts to prove it. That's all I'm arguing for. You are in the wrong arena for that argument. This is an opinion forum on a dating site, not the SCOTUS. People here have opinions which they are entitled too, even you. When you constantly look down your nose at someone else for their opinions, belittle their choice to believe what they bring to the conversation, then you have no right to condemn anyone or their beliefs with the narrow view attained by that angle of sight. I fought for peoples rights including my own. Not a big deal on my part but many of my friends gave all in that defense. So before you question anyone's belief in the rights of others you might respect to consider a few in your own view. I have a problem with someone wanting to govern my country who is constantly mired in scandal, whose poor judgements cost the lives of 4 Americans, who thinks themselves above the practices of security measures set forth by a body of government they work in and risking my country's security with the excuse of "convenience", and decides what the American people deserve rather than hold as law and right. Yeah, I don't like or trust the Clintons, but that is my right. Don't care much for Trump either, but if you want to condemn and call peoples choice a mistake, look back 7 1/2 years, not try to predict the future Clinton shrieks that Trump wants to take our country back, destroying what has been created by the Dems the last 7 1/2 years that they call progress. When I look at the world today I say "GO DONALD!" because if this is progress it needs to be reset because nobody but the banks, corporations, unions and our enemies are better off today than they were 8 or even 20 years ago! 
|
|
|
|
|
