quote:

Is the opposition candidate better off squaring up against a very weak (read debate dodging) Hillary,

Don't think for a minute that if she survives to get the nomination that she can't win.

http://www.theamericanmirror.c...ssault-survivors-ad/

Hillary Clinton believes victims of sexual assault have “a right to be believed.” Except, of course, if the accusations are made against her husband and could complicate her political aspirations.

In Clinton’s new web ad, titled “Hillary’s Message to Survivors of Sexual Assault,” the candidate claims:

I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault .

Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have a right to be heard. You have a right to be believed. We’re with you.

But that’s a very different message Kathleen Willey received in 1993 when she accused Hillary’s husband, President Bill Clinton, of sexually assaulting her.

“She believed what happened for sure,” Willey tells The American Mirror. “She just chose to ignore the plight of all of his victims, thus enabling him to continue to abuse and rape women in the future.”

She adds, “She’s a money-hungry hypocritical witch who will do anything for money."

“She’s a lying pig. I CANNOT believe that she had the gall to make that commercial. How dare she? I hope she rots in hell.“

quote:

Originally posted by bionic218:
I'm undecided.

No, not about her being a slimeball worthless liar - I'm sure of that. But, I'm undecided on the best course of action.

Is the opposition candidate better off squaring up against a very weak (read debate dodging) Hillary, or are we better served by her taking a header into obscurity and having a new opponent fresh to the fight?

Are we better served - as conservatives - by her staying in as a much weakened and compromised candidate, or are we better off having her fall and facing Shotgun Joe and Squaw Warren?

Don't get me wrong; there's no denying the sense of self-satisfaction I would get seeing her drop from the race - for health and family reasons of course. Guilty as she likely is, we know in our hearts she will never do time or face any real consequences.

But, on the other hand, it would be glorious to watch her try - mid FBI investigation - to double-speak and dance around serious hard-ball questions that can come up in a debate scenario with a guy like Trump or Cruz or Paul.

Just putting myself inside the DNC for a second, it seems she's too compromised for any real confrontation with anything but a hand-picked crowd, much less an opposition candidate. My gut says she's done, but stays in a while longer to keep the press off the real play - Biden/Warren. Then she makes a graceful "health and family" exit from the race. Obama offers the "carrot" in the form of a pardon for her cooperation, just in case the FBI actually finds anything; or the "stick" of turning loose the DOJ if she tries to buck the play.

Am I wrong?

Not being facetious or funny, it's a real question. Which way is better for us as conservatives?

We're past the point of worrying about "hardball questions in a debate scenario." The Dems worry is hard ball questions under oath, either to lie or take the Fifth, and when.

The complexity going forward is nobody really knows where this might go. She won't go to jail. Worst case is a plea deal, probation and big fine. But that ought to be disqualifying for President, even if technically not. Timing is everything here. Can they slow roll this until the election? Once she wins the election, if she does get the nomination, it's over.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
http://www.theamericanmirror.c...ssault-survivors-ad/

Hillary Clinton believes victims of sexual assault have “a right to be believed.” Except, of course, if the accusations are made against her husband and could complicate her political aspirations.

In Clinton’s new web ad, titled “Hillary’s Message to Survivors of Sexual Assault,” the candidate claims:

I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault .

Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have a right to be heard. You have a right to be believed. We’re with you.

But that’s a very different message Kathleen Willey received in 1993 when she accused Hillary’s husband, President Bill Clinton, of sexually assaulting her.

“She believed what happened for sure,” Willey tells The American Mirror. “She just chose to ignore the plight of all of his victims, thus enabling him to continue to abuse and rape women in the future.”

She adds, “She’s a money-hungry hypocritical witch who will do anything for money."

“She’s a lying pig. I CANNOT believe that she had the gall to make that commercial. How dare she? I hope she rots in hell.“

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
.........
But that’s a very different message Kathleen Willey received in 1993 when she accused Hillary’s husband, President Bill Clinton, of sexually assaulting her.

“She believed what happened for sure,” Willey tells The American Mirror. “She just chose to ignore the plight of all of his victims, thus enabling him to continue to abuse and rape women in the future.”

She adds, “She’s a money-hungry hypocritical witch who will do anything for money."

“She’s a lying pig. I CANNOT believe that she had the gall to make that commercial. How dare she? I hope she rots in hell.“

Boy, an eyewitness sure can ruin a good story!

Is she too dumb?

http://www.americanthinker.com...ay_just_be_dumb.html

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Is she too dumb?

quote:

Consider another possibility: Hillary may be dumb. We presume otherwise because she went to Ivy League schools and because she belonged to a prominent Little Rock law firm and because she has held a couple of important offices since her husband left the White House. But we all know the real source of her success: she has been Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton for forty years.

That sounds right to me. Of course, the author of this article is sexist.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Is she too dumb?

http://www.americanthinker.com...ay_just_be_dumb.html

Trump keeps calling all of 'em "Stupid" - so there it is in play

That's really how we should refer to this witch: Bill Clinton's wife, because the author of that piece is correct. The only reason we've ever heard of this harpy is because she was married to someone who became president.

Just like that America-hating embarrassment married to Barry the Red.

I don't get why "her high and mighty" - and her team - continue to pretend they do not know what "wipe a server" means. Even if I/public believed that when the story first broke - any sane intelligent person would learn what "wipe a server" means if you are accused of that.

Yet even as early as yesterday Hildabeast and her spokesmen continue to state the sound bite that they do not understand. Even NPR - bastion of liberalism - had a segment on this yesterday that really showed the stupidity and duplicity that is playing out over this.

To a point made earlier - whether she is intelligent or dumb is immaterial - she is acting like we are the dumb ones and by simply pulling political tricks this will all go away. God I hope this torches her campaign.

Wipe Server?

Hillary Clinton's private server is currently in the possession of the FBI. And while it has been reported that the server was "wiped," what actually happened remains unclear. But not because the term is so hard to understand from a technical standpoint. In fact, wiping is a straightforward process. It's very different from hitting the delete button. And if it happened, experts say, it'll hamper the FBI investigation.

We keep hearing from Clinton and her top brass: They don't know the difference between deleting an email and wiping a computer clean.

"What, like with a cloth or something?" Clinton said to reporters at a news conference last month. "I don't know how it works digitally at all."

Earlier this month, her press secretary, Brian Fallon, was on CNN. Correspondent Brianna Keilar was trying to pin down this very basic detail: Was the server wiped?

Fallon responded: "I don't know what wiped means. There's a — the emails were deleted. The emails were deleted."

Hillary Clinton waits behind a curtain before a rally at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee on Thursday. She continues to struggle to explain her use of a private email server while secretary of state.
IT'S ALL POLITICS
Fact Check: Hillary Clinton's Email Defense Is A Mixed Bag
Rep. Elijah Cummings (second from right), the ranking member of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said it's "certainly understandable" that Bryan Pagliano would be advised not to appear before the committee.
IT'S ALL POLITICS
Former Clinton Aide Who Built Private Email Server Pleads The 5th
You can delete emails. You can also wipe a server. You can do both. But Fallon did not say whether both happened. He did repeat a talking point: "I don't know what wiped means. Literally the emails were deleted off the server. That's true."

On March 19, members of Congress requested that Clinton make her server available for inspection by an independent third party. In response, her lawyer, David Kendall, wrote that no Clinton emails during her tenure at the State Department "reside on the server or on any back-up systems associated with the server." In an August letter, Kendall again stated the server "no longer contains data" from Clinton's email account.

He did not indicate whether the data was "deleted" or "wiped" in either correspondence.

A Distinction With A Difference

There's a big difference between the two. Let's start with what it means to delete.

Computer expert Angela Knox, with Cloudmark, says a computer is like a library with a bunch of files — or books — in it. "You know which shelf the book you're looking for is on by looking at the index of the library," she explains.

Books are stored in the back. Index cards at the front counter tell you where exactly. And if people throw a card in the trash, "they're not actually deleting the book from the library. They're just deleting it from the index."

To get rid of a file altogether, you have to overwrite or wipe it. Let's use another analogy. A computer stores data in bits — all 1s and 0s. It's like a row of lightbulbs that are either on or off.

"The pattern on which they're on or off tells you something," Knox says. It tells you the specific characters and sentences in a file, the font, when the file was created and modified, which users accessed it.

"When you want to wipe out that information, you could either turn all the lights off, or you could turn all the lights on, or you could just add a random pattern of on and off lights over the top, and then you wouldn't know what was there before," she says.

(Note: When you switch the lightbulbs off, some will still be warm. That's why adding a random pattern is important.)

The more you write over with a bunch of 1s and 0s, the harder it is to know the original 1s and 0s — the emails, the Word documents, the Excel spreadsheets. If you wipe several times, Knox says, "It will be almost impossible for anybody to collect any data from that drive."

Way More Than Classified Emails At Stake

It turns out, any data means a whole lot more than emails.

Dave Aitel is a former employee of the National Security Agency and currently CEO of the security firm Immunity. He has a prediction about what the FBI is investigating: "It's really probably less about the content of the emails, and more about looking for traces of intrusion on the server itself."

Hackers from Russia or China, he says, could have targeted Clinton and sent her innocent-looking emails with malicious software attached to break in.

The FBI's ability to investigate depends on how the data was removed. Aitel explains:

Option 1: Email was just deleted. No problem, investigators can still find traces of intrusions that may have happened.
Option 2: Email was wiped. Still, traces could linger deep inside the hard drive.
Option 3: The entire hard drive got wiped. That information is lost and they may never find it.
Clinton's lawyer has stated there's no evidence a breach occurred. But her campaign declined to provide NPR with any details about how the server was protected.

Aitel says Clinton's server was more vulnerable to attack than ones in the State Department because the private server didn't have access to a major federal program called Einstein. It can't stop all attacks, but the cyber-defense effort has blocked a lot of them by looking for intrusions and sending alerts to public agencies.

"There's reasons you don't hire FedEx to move your top secret material around. They don't have the capability to protect it," Aitel says.

He says given all the hacks that have happened — Target, Sony Pictures, the Office of Personnel Management — the next president needs to understand cybersecurity issues, not shrug at the difference between deleting and wiping.

An Enigmatic Statement

A former State Department employee who worked on Clinton's server, Bryan Pagliano, says he will invoke the Fifth Amendment in response to congressional inquiries about his services to her.

Clinton subsequently hired the IT company Platte River Networks to manage the server. Public statements from that firm have been enigmatic. Spokesman Andy Boian told NPR: "Platt River Networks has no knowledge of the server being wiped." Interestingly, however, he was unwilling to say that no one at Platte River wiped the server. (Boian also told The Washington Post: "All the information we have is that the server wasn't wiped.")

"It certainly begs the question why won't you confirm that," says Robert Hansen, a vice president at WhiteHat Security. "If you'll admit you have no knowledge of it, why won't you admit no one has done it?"

It could be nothing; or it could be that a manager told an underling, "Sure would be nice if that server got wiped, but I'm not telling anyone to do it."

The public does not know. Hansen says there's a good chance the Clinton campaign does.

quote:

I don't get why her and her team continue to pretend they do not know what "wipe a server" means.

Because that is exactly the defense her husband used almost 20 years ago. And it worked for him.

We don't know, we don't understand, it depends on your definition, etc.

And, as discussed above, this woman is nothing if not her husband's wife.

"just dumb" and "just Bill's wife"

I really wish the Republicans would push that. Get all of the Rep presidential candidates saying it.

Get Rep Senators and House members saying it.

Push the truth.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Just like that America-hating embarrassment married to Barry the Red.

Now, didn't Obama drop a comment a little while back to the effect that Michelle might wind up running for the White House?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...eryone-loves-my-mom/

Chelsea Clinton says as more Americans get a chance to hear from Hillary Rodham Clinton, they will understand “why I believe so strongly that she would make a great president.”

Chelsea Clinton said her mom is always game for singing “The Wheels on the Bus” to baby Charlotte and is helping her learn to walk.

***********************

well, I guess that settles it.

wait, "Wheels on the Bus" ???

quote:

Originally posted by bionic218:

quote:

I don't get why her and her team continue to pretend they do not know what "wipe a server" means.

Because that is exactly the defense her husband used almost 20 years ago. And it worked for him.

We don't know, we don't understand, it depends on your definition, etc.

And, as discussed above, this woman is nothing if not her husband's wife.

both are true, I'm sure.

there's no way, none, she or anyone important didn't understand enough about the technicalities to somehow not know what was and is going on. they may have manufactured plausible deniability by simply avoiding certain specific tidbits of knowledge, but even the dumbest motherfucker at that level is bright enough to gotten these things once explained to them, which would have happened unless you avoided it or otherwise could architect some scenario to specifically not-know...

no, they know... or intentionally "don't know"...

and... they're playing dumb / quasi-clever, just like Bill did.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Chelsea Clinton said her mom is always game for singing “The Wheels on the Bus” to baby Charlotte and is helping her learn to walk.

Better make that "Hil's Under the Bus".

quote:

and because she belonged to a prominent Little Rock law firm

But you can't go there 'cause of the billing records......
Is the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" still getting any credit? She must be stupid to volunteer an opinion about sexual assault.

Bigbore, that is funny as hell!

quote:

We keep hearing from Clinton and her top brass: They don't know the difference between deleting an email and wiping a computer clean.

"What, like with a cloth or something?" Clinton said to reporters at a news conference last month. "I don't know how it works digitally at all."

Earlier this month, her press secretary, Brian Fallon, was on CNN. Correspondent Brianna Keilar was trying to pin down this very basic detail: Was the server wiped?

Fallon responded: "I don't know what wiped means. There's a — the emails were deleted. The emails were deleted."

On this whole email sever debacle, I have a theory. However, my knowledge of internet technology is such that I don't even know if my hypothesis is even remotely possible. Perhaps you IT professionals can validate or debunk this theory.

My theory stems from the rhetoric in recent days from Hillary Clinton and her press secretary as is quoted from NPR:

Is it possible that the server was indeed "wiped" and select data reinstalled to make it appear as if it hadn't been? If so... I'd wager that this is EXACTLY why this team is playing dumb. I'd also wager that there will be some minor issue that are shown in the [select] data that is recovered, enough to get the right's panties in a wad but nothing incriminating.

So... what do you think?