The Hillary Clinton thread

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: $iljanus, LawBeefaroni

Post Reply
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26952
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Rip »

malchior wrote:
YellowKing wrote:
If emails should be preserved, why dont the servers make copies of the emails when they're being received and sent, instead of relying on people to save them?
We are required by law to keep all email for seven years. Litigation hold is done on the mail server side automatically and is completely transparent to the user. It kind of boggles my mind that something like this wasn't set up since it's sort of email 101.
Yup - any regulated institution I have dealt with has email hold periods of 5-7 years and most have a robust e-discovery team in place to handle investigation requests whether external or internal.
Image

Silly little people problems.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 43597
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by GreenGoo »

Those systems are in place so that bigwigs can't fuck them up because of their stupid orders.

Running an unmanaged email server is dumb for a lot of reasons, and this is one of them. I don't think she should go to jail for it, but it is stupid. Then again, I don't expect leaders (private or public) to have the simplest clue about basic IT concepts. The guy who should be raked over the coals is the guy who set this up without explaining the risks and caveats. And if he did, he should have gotten her to sign off on them.

It's pretty clear to me that this was a workaround, first and foremost, and then a cya by intentionally putting your fingers in your eyes ears about what risks were involved, so that now that the shit has hit the fan, you can plead ignorance.

It's still not enough to put her in jail, but it is a dick move.
Last edited by GreenGoo on Wed Jul 13, 2016 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 72336
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by LordMortis »

GreenGoo wrote:Those systems are in place so that bigwigs can't fuck them up because of their stupid orders.

Running an unmanaged email server is dumb for a lot of reasons, and this is one of them. I don't think she should go to jail for it, but it is stupid. Then again, I don't expect leaders (private or public) to have the simplest clue about basic IT concepts. The guy who should be raked over the coals is the guy who set this up without explaining the risks and caveats. And if he did, he should have gotten her to sign off on them.

It's pretty clear to me that this was a workaround, first and foremost, and then a cya by intentionally putting your fingers in your eyes about what risks were involved, so that now that the shit has hit the fan, you can plead ignorance.

It's still not enough to put her in jail, but it is a dick move.
I don't know. Do people get jailed for their companies not retaining email? That sounds odd to me. But if people do get jailed then IT ignorance is not a get of jail free card. I know that heads of companies/officers are legally responsible for their companies, even when they are ignorant of the happenings. I think that is likely to protect underlings from becoming stooges. There is no reason the State Department should be held to a different standard. I just have no idea what the standard is. I hear about email retention legality but it all seems like non legal expert hearsay. It seems ridiculous that you would expect that simply because you are a legal entity with an email server that you should be legally bound to keep all spam for 7 years. That sounds flat out stupid to me.
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 31440
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by YellowKing »

You don't keep all spam, you keep all mail that has entered a mailbox. Hopefully you have a decent enough spam filter that the percentage of spam mail entering an employee mailbox is relatively low.
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 72336
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by LordMortis »

YellowKing wrote:You don't keep all spam, you keep all mail that has entered a mailbox. Hopefully you have a decent enough spam filter that the percentage of spam mail entering an employee mailbox is relatively low.

Is that a legal requirement? Do people seriously go to jail for not keeping pictures of Johnny's second birthday sent by company email on the corporate server? That still doesn't sound right to me.

...

The closest thing I can find here

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_34
(E) Producing the Documents or Electronically Stored Information. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, these procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:

(i) A party must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request;

(ii) If a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms; and

(iii) A party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.
it sounds like if you retain electronic media you may be forced to legally provide it but I can't find any any demands on what you must retain.

Which oddly, enough sounds like there is business case for not keeping electronic emails.
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 24416
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Pyperkub »

GreenGoo wrote:Those systems are in place so that bigwigs can't fuck them up because of their stupid orders.

Running an unmanaged email server is dumb for a lot of reasons, and this is one of them. I don't think she should go to jail for it, but it is stupid. Then again, I don't expect leaders (private or public) to have the simplest clue about basic IT concepts. The guy who should be raked over the coals is the guy who set this up without explaining the risks and caveats. And if he did, he should have gotten her to sign off on them.

It's pretty clear to me that this was a workaround, first and foremost, and then a cya by intentionally putting your fingers in your eyes about what risks were involved, so that now that the shit has hit the fan, you can plead ignorance.

It's still not enough to put her in jail, but it is a dick move.
The diplomat issue also shows how bad Gov't IT has been. Remember that the White House was running Lotus Notes, and then back to Exchange and lost a ton of emails in the transition. Additionally, user managed quotas? For mission critical users?

The things to learn here are to fix Gov't IT so that it works for people, not try to point fingers because it's crappy (even it that is the name of the game). As an example, there's the oft-mentioned use an insecure fax line order because the damn secure fax wasn't working. As anyone who works in IT will tell you, if users can't get their work done because IT isn't working correctly, they will go around IT to try.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Defiant »

YellowKing wrote:You don't keep all spam, you keep all mail that has entered a mailbox. Hopefully you have a decent enough spam filter that the percentage of spam mail entering an employee mailbox is relatively low.
And the percentage of genuine mail not entering their mailbox is even lower.
Jeff V
Posts: 37003
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Nowhere you want to be.

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Jeff V »

LordMortis wrote: Is that a legal requirement? Do people seriously go to jail for not keeping pictures of Johnny's second birthday sent by company email on the corporate server? That still doesn't sound right to me.
Retention periods might be set by applicable regulatory requirements (ie, if the email account is subject to SOX regulation, the requirement is at least 5 years). Otherwise, they can be set by the company, but the company can be liable if they fail to comply with their own policy.

Unless a faulty candle on Johnny's b-day cake was implemented in burning down the house, it is unlikely such an email would ever be subject to legal discovery; which is why companies have retention policies in the first place. Just because a company can retain email forever doesn't mean they should. I think it's 3 years at my company; which seems about right. Once in a great while I might search in vain for an email older than that, but by and large, most are useless after such a long period of time.
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 43597
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by GreenGoo »

LordMortis wrote:
I don't know. Do people get jailed for their companies not retaining email?
No, I wasn't clear. My comments were about the things she's guilty of, none of which are enough to affect her electability in any serious way so that line of investigation is a non-starter.
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 72336
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by LordMortis »

Jeff V wrote:
LordMortis wrote: Is that a legal requirement? Do people seriously go to jail for not keeping pictures of Johnny's second birthday sent by company email on the corporate server? That still doesn't sound right to me.
Retention periods might be set by applicable regulatory requirements (ie, if the email account is subject to SOX regulation, the requirement is at least 5 years). Otherwise, they can be set by the company, but the company can be liable if they fail to comply with their own policy.

Unless a faulty candle on Johnny's b-day cake was implemented in burning down the house, it is unlikely such an email would ever be subject to legal discovery; which is why companies have retention policies in the first place. Just because a company can retain email forever doesn't mean they should. I think it's 3 years at my company; which seems about right. Once in a great while I might search in vain for an email older than that, but by and large, most are useless after such a long period of time.
That all sounds correct and reasonable to me even if I can't get confirmation anywhere. To me that makes email retention a red herring, whereas record retention, in general, could be something huge but I don't know. I'm not on the inside and I'm too lazy to find out.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 57012
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Smoove_B »

LordMortis wrote:That all sounds correct and reasonable to me even if I can't get confirmation anywhere. To me that makes email retention a red herring, whereas record retention, in general, could be something huge but I don't know. I'm not on the inside and I'm too lazy to find out.
This speaks to the heart of the matter that I saw working in Small Town, USA for local government. The laws at the time covered documents - applications, letters, plans. When is a document not a document? When it's an email or saved on a hard drive. That went through legal for at least 3 years as I recall before opinions were rendered. And even then, I'm pretty sure the FOI laws only required that electronic documentation be provided if it was a facsimile of a previously printed document. So if I sent someone a letter but didn't print a hard copy to file, I was still obligated to provide the electronic copy under a FOI request. But if a hard copy wasn't needed or wouldn't have been traditionally considered part of the file, well then it exists on my government provided computer in isolation, free from any request for information.

I fully admit that was over a decade ago and I really have no idea what's changed here in NJ either at a state level or what the locals were doing. But I can say without question "creative application" of what was required by law was absolutely done at one point.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 31440
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by YellowKing »

Yeah Jeff V's explanation is my understanding.

If your policy is to keep mail three years, and someone brings a lawsuit requesting an email that is five years old, you're not in trouble.

If your policy is to keep mail three years, someone brings a lawsuit requesting an email that is two years old, and you can't provide it - you're in a heap of trouble.

At some point our legal department determined we retained mail for seven years, probably based on the time necessary to cover a range of external laws and internal factors.

I'm not in legal/compliance so I don't know how all these policies are enforced, but I do know we go under regular external audits so I'm sure there are things in place to keep us honest. Ultimately, though, it's cheaper to keep everything under litigation hold than to try to figure out what's an important document and what's pictures of Mabel in Accounting's new cat.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 85832
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Isgrimnur »

Pyperkub wrote:Surprise, surprise. Fox news benghazi expert pleads guilty to fraud : http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/04/29 ... aud/210145
33 months
In federal court in Virginia Friday, just before he was sentenced to 33 months in prison, he apologized for lying about his security clearance, his criminal history and his finances.
...
But Simmons, who wore a blue suit and an American flag lapel pin, did not back down on his claims that he spent 27 years as an agency operative doing work so dangerous and secretive that it went entirely unrecorded. He said Friday that he lied his way into military contractor work to make use of a “special skill set” he implied was acquired undercover.

Judge T.S. Ellis III was unconvinced.

“I read spy novels,” the judge said before issuing his sentence. “Every spy novel has black-ops, off-the-books operations. Maybe these things exist.”

He said that, like the many people Simmons fooled, he was initially impressed by the defendant’s charisma and “fascinated” to see what proof Simmons would offer — only to get none. Simmons’s supposed CIA career, he concluded, was “not just implausible but beyond incredible.”
...
It was then that Simmons persuaded a woman with whom he had a relationship to give him $125,000 for a fake real estate investment.

When his promises did not materialize, she went to authorities, telling the government she had trusted Simmons in part because of his Fox News appearances and purported CIA career.

Simmons will have to pay $175,000 in restitution to the government and to the woman, who came to court Friday but declined to speak publicly.

Simmons in April pleaded guilty to major fraud against the United States, wire fraud and being a felon in possession of a firearm. His prior record includes firearms, assault and gambling charges, prosecutors said.

Had the case gone to trial, defense attorney William B. Cummings said, the defense could have called to the stand a former government prosecutor who claims that the CIA has lost or lied about records in the past.

Simmons also has repeatedly blamed his predicament on political machinations. After his arrest last year, according to court documents, Simmons emailed Keith Urbahn, former chief of staff to Rumsfeld, and said that the charges were “all lies and innuendo” because he had “succeeded in becoming the number one enemy of Pres Obama and Hilary Clinton.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Nathanson predicted in court that Simmons would find a way to “roll with” the sentence while continuing to lie about his past.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Defiant »

User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 17286
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Zarathud »

Isn't the IRS supposed to be prosecuting the Democrats' enemies? The IRS recently turned down the Democratic host committee's request for 501(c)(3) exemption even after approving the 501(c)(3) status for the Republican convention committee after just 12 days.
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 85832
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Isgrimnur »

Philly
Word of the decision, a setback for efforts to raise the last of the $60 million needed to help pay for the July 25 to 28 convention, came Friday from its adviser, David L. Cohen.

When the decision came - and why - is less clear. Cohen would say only that the IRS "recently" turned down the application for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)3 of the tax code, which the committee had sought for more than a year.

Cohen, senior executive vice president of Comcast Corp., said the IRS viewed some of the committee's work as too much like political activity to win 501(c)3 status. He declined to release the IRS letter notifying the committee, focusing instead on efforts to appeal the decision.
...
Without the IRS exemption, individual donors cannot claim a tax deduction for their donations. Cohen said earlier Friday that two donors wanted their money back because they could not count on a deduction.
...
Although the committee is appealing the decision and could still get a tax exemption retroactive to its May 2015 application, Cohen said the two donors didn't want to take that risk.
...
Cohen said 25 individual donors had contributed a combined $4 million. The majority of donors, though, are corporations, which can claim tax deductions if the committee ends up becoming a 501(c)6 organization, as officials have contemplated. That type of tax exemption is for business leagues and chambers of commerce that promote common business interests.

To address the lack of 501(c)3 status, the committee signed an agreement with the Convention and Visitors Bureau Foundation, a 501(c)3 fund-raising arm of the bureau, to essentially trade donations for grants.
I'm sure that won't be called tax evasion.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 17286
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Zarathud »

It's only tax evasion if the IRS can show the change was to avoid a tax. There is no obligation to ignore loopholes and maximize your tax obligations.

Plus the GOP is responsible for passing a law preventing the IRS from better defining permissible and prohibited political activity. They're directly responsible for leaving the legal loophole open.
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 85832
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Isgrimnur »

I look forward to the dozen investigations in the new Congress.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Default
Posts: 6549
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:01 pm
Location: Handling bombs.

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Default »

Isgrimnur wrote:I look forward to the dozen investigations in the new Congress.
I hope they have a promo code. That Benghazi nonsense was a lot of money thrown down the toilet.
"pcp, lsd, thc, tgb...it's all good." ~ Kraken
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 42289
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by El Guapo »

Reports are Hillary's VP pick is down to Kaine and Vilsack. I would think that she would have to announce it tomorrow, since the democratic convention starts Monday.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Captain Caveman
Posts: 11687
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:57 am

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Captain Caveman »

El Guapo wrote:Reports are Hillary's VP pick is down to Kaine and Vilsack. I would think that she would have to announce it tomorrow, since the democratic convention starts Monday.
Two boring middle-aged white guys with zero star-power. She most feel pretty confident that she's got this thing in the bag. :)
User avatar
msteelers
Posts: 7338
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Port Saint Lucie, Florida
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by msteelers »

El Guapo wrote:Reports are Hillary's VP pick is down to Kaine and Vilsack. I would think that she would have to announce it tomorrow, since the democratic convention starts Monday.
I wonder the timing of the announcement will depend on Trumps speech. If he does a good job and the reviews are positive tomorrow, then announce on Friday to kick him out of the news cycle. But if he bombs, then maybe let that stew for 24 hours before announcing Saturday.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 42289
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by El Guapo »

Captain Caveman wrote:
El Guapo wrote:Reports are Hillary's VP pick is down to Kaine and Vilsack. I would think that she would have to announce it tomorrow, since the democratic convention starts Monday.
Two boring middle-aged white guys with zero star-power. She most feel pretty confident that she's got this thing in the bag. :)
They're both reasonably respected and inoffensive, they're both from important swing states, they're both people she knows and has worked with and trusts. Plus most of the "star power" choices (Warren, Booker, Sherrod Brown) are from states with GOP governors, which would complicate picking them at a minimum.

Plus Lucifer isn't a natural born U.S. citizen, so he's out.
Black Lives Matter.
Jeff V
Posts: 37003
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Nowhere you want to be.

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Jeff V »

El Guapo wrote: Plus Lucifer isn't a natural born U.S. citizen, so he's out.
I take it you never saw "The Omen"?
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 6506
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Kurth »

YellowKing wrote:Yeah Jeff V's explanation is my understanding.

If your policy is to keep mail three years, and someone brings a lawsuit requesting an email that is five years old, you're not in trouble.

If your policy is to keep mail three years, someone brings a lawsuit requesting an email that is two years old, and you can't provide it - you're in a heap of trouble.

At some point our legal department determined we retained mail for seven years, probably based on the time necessary to cover a range of external laws and internal factors.

I'm not in legal/compliance so I don't know how all these policies are enforced, but I do know we go under regular external audits so I'm sure there are things in place to keep us honest. Ultimately, though, it's cheaper to keep everything under litigation hold than to try to figure out what's an important document and what's pictures of Mabel in Accounting's new cat.
That's not 100% accurate.

In terms of document retention, a company is free to apply whatever retention policy they want for whatever time period they want, or no policy at all. When it comes to destroying documents (otherwise known as "spoliation of evidence"), the essential elements are (1) were emails destroyed in anticipation of litigation, and (2) did that destruction prejudice the other party (e.g., was the destroyed email relevant and not duplicative of other evidence).

If your company has a 2 year retention policy, and you wipe out email that's only a year old, you may be in trouble with your company for violating company policy, but you're not going to be in trouble with the court UNLESS the company knew that litigation was on the foreseeable horizon AND the email you deleted would have been relevant to the matters at issue in that actual or potential litigation.

In practice, the way this works is, once a company meets a threshold level of apprehension that a lawsuit may be imminent (because they know of a likely claim or they've received a demand), a litigation hold is put in place where all likely custodians of potentially relevant documents need to preserve whatever potentially relevant stuff they have. It's wise for companies to take a pretty expansive view of "relevance," at this stage, but, again, we're not talking about preserving pictures of Johnny's birthday party. Just potentially relevant stuff.

Interestingly (maybe just to lawyers), there have been significant amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recently that have addressed electronic discovery specifically. One of the important changes to the rules applies to the available sanctions for failure to comply. Check out Rule 37(e):
(e) Failure to Preserve Electronically Stored Information. If electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court:

(1) upon finding prejudice to another party from loss of the information, may order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice; or

(2) only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation may:

(A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party;

(B) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or

(C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.
Note that under amended Rule 37, unless there's a showing that a party acted intentionally to destroy relevant email (or other ESI) in order to screw the other party, the sanctions are limited to only that which is necessary to cure whatever prejudice the other party suffered.

Of course, this all applies to parties engaged in civil litigation. Government agencies/departments may have other obligations to preserve public records in order to comply with FOI requests and what not.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
malchior
Posts: 24795
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by malchior »

Kurth wrote:That's not 100% accurate.

[quote[In terms of document retention, a company is free to apply whatever retention policy they want for whatever time period they want, or no policy at all. When it comes to destroying documents (otherwise known as "spoliation of evidence"), the essential elements are (1) were emails destroyed in anticipation of litigation, and (2) did that destruction prejudice the other party (e.g., was the destroyed email relevant and not duplicative of other evidence).
If we want to get even more technical (and who doesn't!!) - this would be true for any company not governed by regulatory or contractual requirements that indicate a minimum retention period. Most regulatory regimes allow the company to select but I've seen regulators come in and mandate retention periods before. Usually this is to address a continuing lapse or where other risk factors are at play. I even saw one misguided regulator attempt to mandate forensic packet capture retention requirements at 7 years. In effect, they wanted all network traffic captured and stored in the enterprise for 7 years. When we explained that was pretty much impossible and the enterprise bankrupting cost for even attempting it they quickly dropped the ask. :)
User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 15933
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Max Peck »

Jeff V wrote:
El Guapo wrote: Plus Lucifer isn't a natural born U.S. citizen, so he's out.
I take it you never saw "The Omen"?
Natural born citizen...
"What? What? What?" -- The 14th Doctor

It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 85832
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Isgrimnur »

Max Peck wrote:
Jeff V wrote:
El Guapo wrote: Plus Lucifer isn't a natural born U.S. citizen, so he's out.
I take it you never saw "The Omen"?
Natural born citizen...
What's more natural than supernatural?
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Ralph-Wiggum
Posts: 17449
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:51 am

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Ralph-Wiggum »

msteelers wrote:
El Guapo wrote:Reports are Hillary's VP pick is down to Kaine and Vilsack. I would think that she would have to announce it tomorrow, since the democratic convention starts Monday.
I wonder the timing of the announcement will depend on Trumps speech. If he does a good job and the reviews are positive tomorrow, then announce on Friday to kick him out of the news cycle. But if he bombs, then maybe let that stew for 24 hours before announcing Saturday.
If the West Wing taught me anything, it's that announcements on Fridays get buried and ignored by most people. Even worse for stuff announced on the weekend. So if she is going to declare her VP before Monday, she should at the very least try to announce it Friday morning.
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Defiant »

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: If the West Wing taught me anything, it's that announcements on Fridays get buried and ignored by most people. Even worse for stuff announced on the weekend. So if she is going to declare her VP before Monday, she should at the very least try to announce it Friday morning.
And make sure Josh isn't the one to make the announcement.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 42289
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by El Guapo »

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:
msteelers wrote:
El Guapo wrote:Reports are Hillary's VP pick is down to Kaine and Vilsack. I would think that she would have to announce it tomorrow, since the democratic convention starts Monday.
I wonder the timing of the announcement will depend on Trumps speech. If he does a good job and the reviews are positive tomorrow, then announce on Friday to kick him out of the news cycle. But if he bombs, then maybe let that stew for 24 hours before announcing Saturday.
If the West Wing taught me anything, it's that announcements on Fridays get buried and ignored by most people. Even worse for stuff announced on the weekend. So if she is going to declare her VP before Monday, she should at the very least try to announce it Friday morning.
And make it Clinton / Cruz 2016.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
PLW
Posts: 3058
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:39 am
Location: Clemson

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by PLW »

El Guapo wrote: And make it Clinton / Cruz 2016.
:puke-right: :puke-left:
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 24416
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Pyperkub »

Isgrimnur wrote:
Max Peck wrote:
Jeff V wrote:
El Guapo wrote: Plus Lucifer isn't a natural born U.S. citizen, so he's out.
I take it you never saw "The Omen"?
Natural born citizen...
What's more natural than supernatural?
Super-duper-natural?
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 24416
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Pyperkub »

El Guapo wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
El Guapo wrote:Reports are Hillary's VP pick is down to Kaine and Vilsack. I would think that she would have to announce it tomorrow, since the democratic convention starts Monday.
Two boring middle-aged white guys with zero star-power. She most feel pretty confident that she's got this thing in the bag. :)
They're both reasonably respected and inoffensive, they're both from important swing states, they're both people she knows and has worked with and trusts. Plus most of the "star power" choices (Warren, Booker, Sherrod Brown) are from states with GOP governors, which would complicate picking them at a minimum.

Plus Lucifer isn't a natural born U.S. citizen, so he's out.
But "Lucifer" has already clinched the Dem nomination (at least in Ben Carson's fantasyland...).
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 31440
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by YellowKing »

But "Lucifer" has already clinched the Dem nomination (at least in Ben Carson's fantasyland...).
No, that's pretty much reality. But the Republicans somehow found someone worse than Her Dark Satanic Majesty. :D
User avatar
tjg_marantz
Posts: 14692
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:54 pm
Location: Queen City, SK

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by tjg_marantz »

Isgrimnur wrote:
Max Peck wrote:
Jeff V wrote:
El Guapo wrote: Plus Lucifer isn't a natural born U.S. citizen, so he's out.
I take it you never saw "The Omen"?
Natural born citizen...
What's more natural than supernatural?
Yugenatural of course.
Home of the Akimbo AWPs
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 24416
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Pyperkub »

YellowKing wrote:
But "Lucifer" has already clinched the Dem nomination (at least in Ben Carson's fantasyland...).
No, that's pretty much reality. But the Republicans somehow found someone worse than Her Dark Satanic Majesty. :D
LOL. I can empathize with that!
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 85832
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Isgrimnur »

At least Lucifer has leadership and community organization skills.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Default
Posts: 6549
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:01 pm
Location: Handling bombs.

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Default »

Isgrimnur wrote:At least Lucifer has leadership and community organization skills.
Not to mention, his bbq's are EPIC!
"pcp, lsd, thc, tgb...it's all good." ~ Kraken
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26952
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Post by Rip »

Yea but his bracketology leaves a lot to be desired. Don't even get me started on his handicap, pathetic for someone who plays so much. Kim Jong-Un would kick his ass.
Post Reply