Page 43 of 83
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 10:59 am
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.
Silly little people problems.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 12:06 pm
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 12:20 pm
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 1:03 pm
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 1:16 pm
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 1:36 pm
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 1:44 pm
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 2:31 pm
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 2:35 pm
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 2:40 pm
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 2:46 pm
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:20 pm
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:07 pm
by Isgrimnur
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2016 12:13 pm
by Defiant
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 4:21 pm
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 4:25 pm
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 4:48 pm
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 4:51 pm
by Isgrimnur
I look forward to the dozen investigations in the new Congress.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2016 11:20 pm
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:08 am
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:11 am
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:14 am
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:15 am
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:27 am
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"?
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:54 am
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 11:19 am
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 12:34 pm
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...
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 12:38 pm
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?
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 1:01 pm
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 1:04 pm
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 1:20 pm
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 1:57 pm
by PLW
El Guapo wrote:
And make it Clinton / Cruz 2016.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:08 pm
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?
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:10 pm
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...).
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:11 pm
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 4:07 pm
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.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 4:51 pm
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.
LOL. I can empathize with that!
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 4:54 pm
by Isgrimnur
At least Lucifer has leadership and community organization skills.
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:08 pm
by Default
Isgrimnur wrote:At least Lucifer has leadership and community organization skills.
Not to mention, his bbq's are EPIC!
Re: The Hillary Clinton thread
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:13 pm
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.