Isn't the whole point of training is that you recall receiving it, especially for something as crucial as the handling of classified information? Again, not criminal, but certainly shades of incompetence at best and lack of ethics at worst. You often mention the right wing attack machine. Can you blame them when Clinton literally writes the attack vectors for them?Bullshit headline sucked you right in, huh?
She said she didn't recall, not that she hadn't received any training. There is a difference.
Nobody wants to see a Trump presidency, but some of Clintons actions are indefensible.
39 instances of failing to recall? Reports of someone using bleachbit, which even CNN is reporting as the "oh sh!t" moment. These are not ethical behaviors.
Even if the process is not reversible, Gowdy might have been overstating it’s efficacy and Clinton’s intentions. Computer security expert Jonathan Zdzairski told CNN that BleachBit is an “amateur” program:
"It looks like the type of tool someone would run who's conscious of cleaning old crud off their system," Zdziarski said. "Someone trying to cover their tracks would likely pay for and use a much more expensive, specialized data destruction tool."
Its not the effectiveness of the tool that matters, its the implied intent and timingBleachbit
An open source freebie file remover?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...on_used_file_clearing_software_bleachbit.html
25 years and the GOP still hasn't made anything stick.
Its not the effectiveness of the tool that matters, its the implied intent and timing
Isn't the whole point of training is that you recall receiving it, especially for something as crucial as the handling of classified information? Again, not criminal, but certainly shades of incompetence at best and lack of ethics at worst. You often mention the right wing attack machine. Can you blame them when Clinton literally writes the attack vectors for them?
Its not the effectiveness of the tool that matters, its the implied intent and timing
Bullshit headline sucked you right in, huh?
She said she didn't recall, not that she hadn't received any training. There is a difference.
The point of training is to get beyond that & to use what was learned as a matter of course.
.
Convenient that intent becomes inpossible to prove when those questioned have no recollection of anything that happened at any time under any circumstancesYeh, stated intent is irrelevant when conspiracy theory better serves the purpose at hand, huh?
Somewhat false equivaleny. Innocently and inadvertently clicking maleware is not the same thing as actively deleting evidence of emails existing because a story broke in the mediaSort of like receiving a malware email on your computer implies you're some kinda porn perv, and trying to clean it up implies you're hiding something. The OP is clueless but I suspect you can figure out he's counterproductive to the cause, and even the appearance of associating with that sort is rather counter to personal self-interest.
Somewhat false equivaleny. Innocently and inadvertently clicking maleware is not the same thing as actively deleting evidence of emails existing because a story broke in the media
I've seen spambots with less dumber names than 0roo0roo. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Yeh, stated intent is irrelevant when conspiracy theory better serves the purpose at hand, huh?
Somewhat false equivaleny. Innocently and inadvertently clicking maleware is not the same thing as actively deleting evidence of emails existing because a story broke in the media
Convenient that intent becomes inpossible to prove when those questioned have no recollection of anything that happened at any time under any circumstances
Is zombie the new post turtle?
Again false equivalency. In politics, even the appearance of unethical behavior in and of itself is incriminating. I've stated many times that there is no evidence of anything criminal, but for anyone who's ever attended even the most basic of corporate ethics training, you have to admit some significantly poor decisions on her part. Were those decisions born of paranoia, ignorance, eliticism or incompetence, I will let you judge for yourselfThis appears the same logic behind various authorities' attempts to track people who might download/use such tools because they've obvious got something to hide. But let's suppose for the sake of argument she had intent to delete possibly incriminating emails or whatever. That doesn't seem terribly unusual given what some folks consider incriminating as we've seen, and you tacitly agree aren't really. Frankly I'd imagine you would, too, given similar circumstances.
She didnt hand over everything, and only AFTER the media revealed existence of her private server.You do realize that Clinton didn't delete anything and she handed over everything to the lawyers with the expectation that they will handle everything. Ignoring the fact that Clinton appears to be a technology neophyte, it would be near impossible to prove intent but that doesn't seem to stop you from doing it.
I suggest you take a long hard look in the mirror and figure out what your intentions are.
Somewhat false equivaleny. Innocently and inadvertently clicking maleware is not the same thing as actively deleting evidence of emails existing because a story broke in the media