keepthefaith Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 (edited) it's this kind of crap one of the reasons I cant stand her. Stumping for environmentalist votes she belches out some outlandish promise that she as president would not have unilateral authority to deliver on. Hillary Clinton Pledges to Install 500 Million Solar Panels If Voted Presidenthttp://time.com/3972710/hillary-clinton-presidential-election-climate-change/ Like all liberal causes, they never explain how we will pay for it. Edited July 27, 2015 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Like all liberal causes, they never explain how we will pay for it. I believe Hillary's plan is to create a new eco-friendly income tax for anyone earning over $15/hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 it's this kind of crap one of the reasons I cant stand her. Stumping for environmentalist votes she belches out some outlandish promise that she as president would not have unilateral authority to deliver on. Hillary Clinton Pledges to Install 500 Million Solar Panels If Voted President http://time.com/3972710/hillary-clinton-presidential-election-climate-change/ That only requires about a doubling of world output, all consumed by the US. I'm sure that's practical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 (edited) A friend of mine was telling me that the NY Times story on the Clinton eMail thing has been debunked. So I did a little research. I found this article on Newsweek date July 24: http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246 One thing the author mentions I have not seen before. Second, contrary to the implication from the first Times story, Clinton’s emails sent in her role as secretary of state were automatically saved into a secure data system under the control of the department. In fact, where does the Times think the FOIA offices for the State Department and the intelligence community are finding the 55,000 pages of emails now under review that it cites in its new story? Are officials breaking into Clinton’s house in the middle of the night to examine them by flashlight? Nope. They are pulling them off of the system under the department’s control. The first bolded part I'm not so sure about. I thought a big part of this was that since she used her own server this stuff wasn't captured. From a technical perspective I suppose this is possible somehow but not sure how. Part of Hillary's excuse was that she always copied in someone with a government account so it would be captured. (Except when she didn't want it captured of course.) The second bolded part I thought they were getting them from the 10 yard high stack of hard copy she had sent them. Did they only capture the ones that didn't involve planning Chelsea's wedding or her Mom's funeral? Why did she need to provide the emails if they already had them? I've been following this story in part because I have professional email, records, and document management experience and find it amazing the way the IT department in DC works. But this the first time I've heard this. Anyone else know anything about the 2 bolded parts above? Edited July 27, 2015 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 27, 2015 Author Share Posted July 27, 2015 But Joe, she'll have a phone and a pen. She'll be able to got a lot done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 A friend of mine was telling me that the NY Times story on the Clinton eMail thing has been debunked. So I did a little research. I found this article on Newsweek date July 24: http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246 One thing the author mentions I have not seen before. The first bolded part I'm not so sure about. I thought a big part of this was that since she used her own server this stuff wasn't captured. From a technical perspective I suppose this is possible somehow but not sure how. Part of Hillary's excuse was that she always copied in someone with a government account so it would be captured. (Except when she didn't want it captured of course.) The second bolded part I thought they were getting them from the 10 yard high stack of hard copy she had sent them. Did they only capture the ones that didn't involve planning Chelsea's wedding or her Mom's funeral? Why did she need to provide the emails if they already had them? I've been following this story in part because I have professional email, records, and document management experience and find it amazing the way the IT department in DC works. But this the first time I've heard this. Anyone else know anything about the 2 bolded parts above? The problem with the first part is there's no way to prove it short of looking at her server (and even then, she could have wiped out anything that wasn't captured by a federal system.) It could be true...or it could be a lie. No way to tell. So it's a nice way to cloud the issue further. The second...my recollection is the same as yours. A buttload of printed copies of what Hillary thought was relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Very wide right Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 The problem with the first part is there's no way to prove it short of looking at her server (and even then, she could have wiped out anything that wasn't captured by a federal system.) It could be true...or it could be a lie. No way to tell. So it's a nice way to cloud the issue further. The second...my recollection is the same as yours. A buttload of printed copies of what Hillary thought was relevant. Tom ,It's like those damn missles that only you saw take out the Pentagon on 9-11 .If it wasn't for wackos err I mean whistleblowers like you we just wouldn't get to the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Tom ,It's like those damn missles that only you saw take out the Pentagon on 9-11 .If it wasn't for wackos err I mean whistleblowers like you we just wouldn't get to the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Tom ,It's like those damn missles that only you saw take out the Pentagon on 9-11 .If it wasn't for wackos err I mean whistleblowers like you we just wouldn't get to the truth. You peaked in high school, didn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 That only requires about a doubling of world output, all consumed by the US. I'm sure that's practical. At around $20,000 a pop that's a cool $10 trillion too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Hours after launching global warming push, here is Hillary boarding private jet: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Hours after launching global warming push, here is Hillary boarding private jet: She's dead broke so it's not her fault that she can't afford a more fuel efficient private jet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Hours after launching global warming push, here is Hillary boarding private jet: What happened to the van? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 At around $20,000 a pop that's a cool $10 trillion too That's for a complete residential installation. It's really impossible to judge the cost, since nobody measure solar energy in "panels." It's measured in megawatts or gigawatts, and while there is a direct relation between photovoltaic cells and electricity generation (~150 watts per cell, I think), a "panel" can contain anything from 4 to 100 photovoltaic cells (or more, I imagine. The highest number I could find was 96 cells per panel). So her statement is completely meaningless - it turns out a "solar panel" is a complete abstraction, and unmeasurable for any practical purpose. Good sound byte, devoid of any meaning, and so abstract easily manipulated and misrepresented, so she can't be held to it. It's the quintessential Clintonian statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 So her statement is completely meaningless - it turns out a "solar panel" is a complete abstraction, and unmeasurable for any practical purpose. Good sound byte, devoid of any meaning, and so abstract easily manipulated and misrepresented, so she can't be held to it. It's the quintessential Clintonian statement. Maybe not completely................ Any solar panel manufacturer contributions to. Clinton Foundation? I remember there was always a lot of Haiti/Clinton money being talked about for "solar energy" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) Edited July 28, 2015 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 A friend of mine was telling me that the NY Times story on the Clinton eMail thing has been debunked. So I did a little research. I found this article on Newsweek date July 24: http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246 One thing the author mentions I have not seen before. The first bolded part I'm not so sure about. I thought a big part of this was that since she used her own server this stuff wasn't captured. From a technical perspective I suppose this is possible somehow but not sure how. Part of Hillary's excuse was that she always copied in someone with a government account so it would be captured. (Except when she didn't want it captured of course.) The second bolded part I thought they were getting them from the 10 yard high stack of hard copy she had sent them. Did they only capture the ones that didn't involve planning Chelsea's wedding or her Mom's funeral? Why did she need to provide the emails if they already had them? I've been following this story in part because I have professional email, records, and document management experience and find it amazing the way the IT department in DC works. But this the first time I've heard this. Anyone else know anything about the 2 bolded parts above? Of course it's possible. Emails follow the same request/response pattern as anything else. You add code in the response that inserts the incoming header and content into a database, before the "sent" response goes back, and you're done. I will say "secure data system" reeks of "I don't know WTF I'm talking about". It's not a system. It's a server. A software DBMS server(not to be confused with the hardware meaning of the word), within which many databases can be created, and one or more of which can be used to store emails. The FOIA statement is pure idiocy. This is like telling us water is wet, and just as irrelevant. The issue here is whom did she email, and about what, that doesn't work for the US government? Did she disclose classified info in those emails, via her own stupidity, or the stupidity of accessing an unsecured Pop server with her easily cracked or intercepted phone/blackberry? Or, did she do it intentionally? Did she decide to unclassify things on an ad-hoc basis at her convenience? See, unless she is a total moron, she wanted to conduct messaging outside of the US government's ability to prevent or reprimand her from telling whoever she wants, whatever she wants. FOIA has nothing to do with that whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 There is a two-month gap in Hillary Clinton’s emails that coincides with violence in Libya and the employment status of a top Clinton aide, Huma Abedin. Among the approximately 2,000 emails that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has released from her private account, there is a conspicuous two-month gap. There are no emails between Clinton and her State Department staff during May and June 2012, a period of escalating violence in Libya leading up to the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that left four Americans dead. A State Department spokesman told The Daily Beast that for the year 2012, only those emails related to the security of the consulate or to the U.S. diplomatic presence in Libya were made public and turned over to a House committee investigating the fatal Benghazi assault. But if that’s true, then neither Clinton nor her staff communicated via email about the escalating dangers in Libya. There were three attacks during that two-month period, including one that targeted the consulate. That two-month period also coincides with a senior Clinton aide obtaining a special exemption that allowed her to work both as a staff member to the secretary and in a private capacity for Clinton and her husband’s foundation. The Associated Press has sued to obtain emails from Clinton’s account about the aide, Huma Abedin. This chick is down right shady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) Hmm. Mysteriously appearing boxes of records? That sounds familiar Hillary Clinton's former spokesman turns over 20 boxes of emails Long-time Hillary Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines handed the State Department 20 boxes of work-related emails taken in part from a personal email account, State officials said Wednesday, calling into question the extent to which top aides to the former secretary of state also engaged in controversial email practices. State Department top document official John Hackett, who heads Freedom of Information Act requests for the agency, told a federal judge in a court hearing Wednesday that Reines was among several officials asked to turn over any any work-related documents in his possession. He handed over 20 boxes last night, according to a separate State lawyer present at the hearing. The hearing involved a lawsuit filed by the Associated Press that charges the agency with failing to respond to FOIA requests. Hackett also told the court that State couldn’t produce all of the documents requested by the AP at this time — including one related to Huma Abedin’s role as a “special government employee.” He said the agency is still awaiting work-related emails from former agency officials Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills. Hackett did not say whether the documents being sought were from a personal account or State.gov account. The Reines revelations call into question the extent to which Clinton’s aides relied on personal emails for official business, which goes against government record-keeping and transparency rules. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillarys-former-spokesman-turns-over-20-boxes-of-emails-120791.html#ixzz3hKYhf1Hy Edited July 30, 2015 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 Would not a registered letter or process server been quicker and more efficient? State Department request for Huma Abedin´s records waylaid for 2 monthsPolitico, by Josh Gerstein Original Article DRIP: Judge asked to seize USB flash drive containing Hillary Clinton’s email. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts