BillStime Posted February 9, 2022 Author Posted February 9, 2022 3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: You really don’t understand the issue of Hilary using a private server? Really? Oh - I do. Where was the outrage when the Trump White House did the same exact thing? Why wasn’t Hillary indicted?
SoCal Deek Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 Just now, BillStime said: Oh - I do. Where was the outrage when the Trump White House did the same exact thing? Why wasn’t Hillary indicted? There should be outrage no matter who was or is doing it. As to why she wasn’t indicted it’s because she was no longer in office and the damage had been done. Your general lack of understanding of the basics is nothing short of astonishing. 1
BillStime Posted February 9, 2022 Author Posted February 9, 2022 36 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: There should be outrage no matter who was or is doing it. As to why she wasn’t indicted it’s because she was no longer in office and the damage had been done. Your general lack of understanding of the basics is nothing short of astonishing. lmao, I love your ol' default response when you can't justify Trump's behavior - especially when the POS campaigned on LOCK HER UP and Hillary can't be trusted with US security...
SoCal Deek Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 27 minutes ago, BillStime said: lmao, I love your ol' default response when you can't justify Trump's behavior - especially when the POS campaigned on LOCK HER UP and Hillary can't be trusted with US security... Don’t blame me for your lack of understanding. You’ll learn when you grow up. Just be patient. Your skin will clear up and your voice will get deeper too. 1 1 1
BillStime Posted February 9, 2022 Author Posted February 9, 2022 1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said: Don’t blame me for your lack of understanding. You’ll learn when you grow up. Just be patient. Your skin will clear up and your voice will get deeper too. Keep spinning. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said: Don’t blame me for your lack of understanding. You’ll learn when you grow up. Just be patient. Your skin will clear up and your voice will get deeper too. I’m not so sure. He’s arguing that it’s silly to suggest Hillary couldn’t be trusted…after Comey called her “extremely careless” and Obama suggested that she was careless with emails. Of course, Comey indicated there was potential criminality but oddly decided to declare that a prosecutor wouldn’t bring a case.
BillStime Posted February 9, 2022 Author Posted February 9, 2022 2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I’m not so sure. He’s arguing that it’s silly to suggest Hillary couldn’t be trusted…after Comey called her “extremely careless” and Obama suggested that she was careless with emails. Of course, Comey indicated there was potential criminality but oddly decided to declare that a prosecutor wouldn’t bring a case. Your cult argued she couldn’t be trusted and won - based on Trump’s history I assume you’ll apply the same logic to Trump 2024 candidacy?
SoCal Deek Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 10 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I’m not so sure. He’s arguing that it’s silly to suggest Hillary couldn’t be trusted…after Comey called her “extremely careless” and Obama suggested that she was careless with emails. Of course, Comey indicated there was potential criminality but oddly decided to declare that a prosecutor wouldn’t bring a case. If any of you people ever worked in a classified environment you’d understand how out of bounds her behavior was. Anyone else would’ve been….yep…LOCKED UP!
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 17 minutes ago, BillStime said: Your cult argued she couldn’t be trusted and won - based on Trump’s history I assume you’ll apply the same logic to Trump 2024 candidacy? I didn’t say she couldn’t be trusted, you’re thinking of Comey and Obama. What always intrigues me about your posts is that you’ll take a losing point, for instance, HCs fundamental inability to properly manage e-mail and in particular, National Security documents. She was taken to the shed by Comey, was described as “extremely careless” with national security issues. The only reason he said that is because it was true. You then take that point and pretend it never happened. Why is that? She didn’t lose because of people like me. She lost because too many people like you realized her actions were indefensible. They get nervous when people who keep the secrets are “extremely careless” when doing so. 26 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: If any of you people ever worked in a classified environment you’d understand how out of bounds her behavior was. Anyone else would’ve been….yep…LOCKED UP! My brother works for a software company that used to do govt work. He was all over that point, and what would necessarily follow were he to be reckless…careless… or God forbid, be described by the FBI as “extremely careless”. Prison time was a certainty. Of course, he wasn’t, because he’s not a numnut.
BillStime Posted February 9, 2022 Author Posted February 9, 2022 4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I didn’t say she couldn’t be trusted, you’re thinking of Comey and Obama. What always intrigues me about your posts is that you’ll take a losing point, for instance, HCs fundamental inability to properly manage e-mail and in particular, National Security documents. She was taken to the shed by Comey, was described as “extremely careless” with national security issues. The only reason he said that is because it was true. You then take that point and pretend it never happened. Why is that? She didn’t lose because of people like me. She lost because too many people like you realized her actions were indefensible. They get nervous when people who keep the secrets are “extremely careless” when doing so. My brother works for a software company that used to do govt work. He was all over that point, and what would necessarily follow were he to be reckless…careless… or God forbid, be described by the FBI as “extremely careless”. Prison time was a certainty. Of course, he wasn’t, because he’s not a numnut. Wrong - all I am doing is highlighting the lack of outrage from the cult with Trump’s practice of hoarding and destroying classified documents. Where is the outrage from the cult? Was Trump “extremely careless” and will you vote for him?
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 18 minutes ago, BillStime said: Wrong - all I am doing is highlighting the lack of outrage from the cult with Trump’s practice of hoarding and destroying classified documents. So you’re acknowledging that Hillary Clinton was extremely reckless as determined by the FBI, her actions were likely criminal? Why did you vote for her? 18 minutes ago, BillStime said: Where is the outrage from the cult? Was Trump “extremely careless” and will you vote for him? I acknowledge that I have no idea what you are referencing. I’m aware of the Russia investigation, the twists, turns, allegations and investigations. He said nothing would come of it because it was a “witch hunt”. He was correct. I’m aware that the Dems proceeded with a partisan impeachment over allegations of wrongdoing with respect to Ukraine. I know that while he was impeached by the opposition, no wrong doing was ever established and he’s facing no charges for that. Again, DJT correctly predicted the outcome. I’m aware there is a committee established to look into the Jan 6 assault on the Capitol. I’m also aware the same folks that failed in 1 and 2 above are running the show in a fashion similar fashion. If what happened previously happens again, the Dems will fail, they will assure you they didn’t, and you’ll believe it. Trump likely will be proven correct again. Now, beyond that, what do you have for me in terms of Trump playing fast and lose with national security or not understanding how basic internet security works? 1
Wacka Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said: Don’t blame me for your lack of understanding. You’ll learn when you grow up. Just be patient. Your skin will clear up and your voice will get deeper too. And he'll get hair in some strange places!😀 1
BillStime Posted February 9, 2022 Author Posted February 9, 2022 12 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: So you’re acknowledging that Hillary Clinton was extremely reckless as determined by the FBI, her actions were likely criminal? Why did you vote for her? I acknowledge that I have no idea what you are referencing. I’m aware of the Russia investigation, the twists, turns, allegations and investigations. He said nothing would come of it because it was a “witch hunt”. He was correct. I’m aware that the Dems proceeded with a partisan impeachment over allegations of wrongdoing with respect to Ukraine. I know that while he was impeached by the opposition, no wrong doing was ever established and he’s facing no charges for that. Again, DJT correctly predicted the outcome. I’m aware there is a committee established to look into the Jan 6 assault on the Capitol. I’m also aware the same folks that failed in 1 and 2 above are running the show in a fashion similar fashion. If what happened previously happens again, the Dems will fail, they will assure you they didn’t, and you’ll believe it. Trump likely will be proven correct again. Now, beyond that, what do you have for me in terms of Trump playing fast and lose with national security or not understanding how basic internet security works? Wow, so, you really do only digest sugar coated Trump news - SMFH So Trump hoarding boxes of White House documents at Mar-a-Lago and destroying documents at the White House during his presidency is acceptable? Should the FBI and DOJ search all of Trump's properties for more documents? This is NOT a threat to national security? National Archives asks Justice Dept. to investigate Trump’s handling of White House records - the request came amid revelations that officials recovered 15 boxes of materials from the former president’s Mar-a-Lago residence that weren’t handed back to the government as they should have been Trump filled ‘burn bags’ with shredded White House records in violation of federal law, report says Ex-president’s relentless habit ‘far more widespread and indiscriminate than previously known’ Historians having to tape together records that Trump tore up But their emails: Seven members of Trump’s team have used unofficial communication tools I notice you are trying really hard to spin as much as you can to deflect from the latest bombshell of corruption from the former Trump administration... it's really cute and it just makes you look more absurd. And given the choice in 2016 to vote for Hillary or Donald - I could never vote for this POS:
BillStime Posted February 10, 2022 Author Posted February 10, 2022 2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: If any of you people ever worked in a classified environment you’d understand how out of bounds her behavior was. Anyone else would’ve been….yep…LOCKED UP! Yeah I work for an Oracle based firm and I know all about cybersecurity, compliance and resilience. Funny none of you minded Colin Powell doing the SAME thing and advised Hillary on the practice: “So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers,” Powell wrote. “I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.” Colin Powell’s advice to Hillary Clinton makes her private email server look like less of a scandal Colin Powell on use of private email: ‘I stand by my decisions and I am fully accountable.’ Colin Powell told Clinton he bypassed official servers to email foreign leaders More faux outrage from the cult. When their guy does the same thing they justify it because Conald Trump did in fact used the office for personal gain, collude with Russians in both elections, weaponized his DOJ and tried to overturn the election via the Big Lie and an insurrection. Keep spinning Delta3
BillStime Posted February 10, 2022 Author Posted February 10, 2022 10 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Prior to the rambling manifesto you just posted, you offered up the following: Where is the outrage from the cult? Was Trump “extremely careless” and will you vote for him? Absent context, this is gibberish. Thank you for the links. You are welcome for my guidance in helping you organize your thoughts. On to your links… National Archives asks Justice Dept….. I can’t access this link as its behind a paywall. I’ll bet, however, that you read about unnamed sources deep within something and blah blah blah. On the other hand, I found this story about mutual cooperation, ongoing discussion and a direct denial of what you read in the WaPo. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/national-archives-denies-raiding-mar-a-lago-for-trump-documents/ar-AATCEYP To answer the original question you posed…no, nothing about this story (with the actions described as “common” by those who undertake such work strikes me as “extremely reckless”, though I would describe you as “extremely naive”. Trump filled ‘burn bags’ with shredded… In reading this story, I note the author starts with a declaration about everybody knowing about Trump ripping documents and placing the contents in burn bags. Gee, look there, their source? We’ll get to that. Soon enough, that will be reported elsewhere and you’ll probably think that you spotted the trend! The headline, of course reads the burn bags were stuffed with “shredded White House records…”. On the other hand, the author notes documents were torn into “quarters” and placed in burn bags. I would point out that for most of us in the real world, “tearing a piece of paper into quarters” is not the same as “shredding”. I’d bet you know that, huh BillSy? I’d also note that there seems to be a disconnect between what’s called a “burn bag” here, and a bag the author then suggests documents torn into quarters are removed from and placed together with scotch tape. Back to the sourcing. I note the circular reporting style made famous during the Russia story, where the Independent quotes the—this is awkward—-WaPo, the one who assured you the National Archives folks weren’t just gathering documents as is “common” when a president leaves office. To answer the original question you posed, I would describe the tearing of sheets of paper into quarters—-if that happened and I bet it didn’t—as “non compliant” and “unnecessary” given that the story purports the documents were restored anyway. Historians having to tape together records that Trump tore up This is a rehashing of the first story, which of course, seems silly upon reflection. We find the same declaration that Trump was always ripping things up (what a coincidence they used the same words as in the first article!) we have a Putin reference to draw you in further, and fears of giants holes in records. I didn’t read the last link, I am assuming that’s your ace in the hole where the FBI director speaks to Trump officials ignoring classified and top secret markings in emails, being “extremely careless” as Sec of State, and about how the activity was likely criminal but prosecutors don’t prosecute such things? Yeah, I thought not. 🙄 You don’t have to believe everything they tell you, or notice trends in the way things are reported, or question every unnamed source that never quite seems to deliver on the goods they purport to have, but you won’t look as silly as you did here today if you put a little effort in. Godspeed pilgrim!
BillStime Posted February 10, 2022 Author Posted February 10, 2022 LOCK CONALD UP - a national security risk
BillStime Posted February 10, 2022 Author Posted February 10, 2022 Hey @leh-nerd skin-erd - is there a reason why you deleted your gibberish...? Hilarious. Quote 10 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Prior to the rambling manifesto you just posted, you offered up the following: Where is the outrage from the cult? Was Trump “extremely careless” and will you vote for him? Absent context, this is gibberish. Thank you for the links. You are welcome for my guidance in helping you organize your thoughts. On to your links… National Archives asks Justice Dept….. I can’t access this link as its behind a paywall. I’ll bet, however, that you read about unnamed sources deep within something and blah blah blah. On the other hand, I found this story about mutual cooperation, ongoing discussion and a direct denial of what you read in the WaPo. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/national-archives-denies-raiding-mar-a-lago-for-trump-documents/ar-AATCEYP To answer the original question you posed…no, nothing about this story (with the actions described as “common” by those who undertake such work strikes me as “extremely reckless”, though I would describe you as “extremely naive”. Trump filled ‘burn bags’ with shredded… In reading this story, I note the author starts with a declaration about everybody knowing about Trump ripping documents and placing the contents in burn bags. Gee, look there, their source? We’ll get to that. Soon enough, that will be reported elsewhere and you’ll probably think that you spotted the trend! The headline, of course reads the burn bags were stuffed with “shredded White House records…”. On the other hand, the author notes documents were torn into “quarters” and placed in burn bags. I would point out that for most of us in the real world, “tearing a piece of paper into quarters” is not the same as “shredding”. I’d bet you know that, huh BillSy? I’d also note that there seems to be a disconnect between what’s called a “burn bag” here, and a bag the author then suggests documents torn into quarters are removed from and placed together with scotch tape. Back to the sourcing. I note the circular reporting style made famous during the Russia story, where the Independent quotes the—this is awkward—-WaPo, the one who assured you the National Archives folks weren’t just gathering documents as is “common” when a president leaves office. To answer the original question you posed, I would describe the tearing of sheets of paper into quarters—-if that happened and I bet it didn’t—as “non compliant” and “unnecessary” given that the story purports the documents were restored anyway. Historians having to tape together records that Trump tore up This is a rehashing of the first story, which of course, seems silly upon reflection. We find the same declaration that Trump was always ripping things up (what a coincidence they used the same words as in the first article!) we have a Putin reference to draw you in further, and fears of giants holes in records. I didn’t read the last link, I am assuming that’s your ace in the hole where the FBI director speaks to Trump officials ignoring classified and top secret markings in emails, being “extremely careless” as Sec of State, and about how the activity was likely criminal but prosecutors don’t prosecute such things? Yeah, I thought not. 🙄 You don’t have to believe everything they tell you, or notice trends in the way things are reported, or question every unnamed source that never quite seems to deliver on the goods they purport to have, but you won’t look as silly as you did here today if you put a little effort in. Godspeed pilgrim!
Recommended Posts