U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-18-2015, 12:42 PM
 
34,215 posts, read 41,191,686 times
Reputation: 29674

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
Kind of a dumb question, yes?

The emails are classified. Some are Confidential; some are Secret, and some may be Top Secret. And you ask to see examples?
So you have no idea as to the content of these emails yet you want to hang Hillary based on no evidence whatsoever just hearsay and unproven allegations..

 
Old 08-18-2015, 12:51 PM
 
Location: Secure Bunker
5,464 posts, read 2,479,236 times
Reputation: 5241
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101 View Post
So you have no idea as to the content of these emails yet you want to hang Hillary based on no evidence whatsoever just hearsay and unproven allegations..
The content is completely irrelevant from a legal perspective. The only thing that matters is whether or not they were classified and what level of classification they had. That's it.

Having said that she will not be prosecuted because:

1) Criminal behavior by Progressives is OK with other Progressives.

2) She knows too much about Barack Obama. Don't want any beans getting spilled.
 
Old 08-18-2015, 12:53 PM
 
1,660 posts, read 925,469 times
Reputation: 2354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyster View Post
The content is completely irrelevant from a legal perspective. The only thing that matters is whether or not they were classified and what level of classification they had. That's it.

Having said that she will not be prosecuted because:

1) Criminal behavior by Progressives is OK with other Progressives.

2) She knows too much about Barack Obama. Don't want any beans getting spilled.
If you have read the thread you will have read that depending on the content of the emails she did have the authority to declassify the info. So the content of the emails is relevant. Bad move politically yes. Illegal, no.
 
Old 08-18-2015, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Secure Bunker
5,464 posts, read 2,479,236 times
Reputation: 5241
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
Cheney would be at risk in places in Europe and elsewhere. He is not going to get indicted in the US but there are places where it could well happen.

I would presume he and Bush avoid such countries.
So what. That doesn't mean that frothing Leftists in Europe have any kind of point. And exactly what international law did Bush and Cheney break?
 
Old 08-18-2015, 01:21 PM
 
19,730 posts, read 11,000,012 times
Reputation: 19717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post
To make my point without you having a partisan kneejerk to defend her, lets use Mr. X with the exact same qualifications and lack thereof that she does.
With no military/intelligence background, I can easily see Mr. X not having a proper understanding of what is classified or even Top Secret.
For a position that high in the government with all sorts of sensitive information coming and going, you need someone with a strong knowledge base to be able to decipher whether something should be classified or not. Don't you think?`
That would be practically nobody elected or appointed directly out of anywhere except right out of the intelligence community. That's like expecting a presidential candidate to know how to fly Air Force One.



Quote:

TOP SECRET
Such material would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if made publicly
available.

SECRET
Secret material would cause "serious damage" to national security if it were publicly available


CONFIDENTIAL
Confidential material would cause damage or be prejudicial to national security if publicly available.
Those are the actual definitions right out of the book. Who makes those quite vague determinations? The Original Classification Authority. For the State Department, the OCA is Hillary Clinton, She is the person who, by her own opinion, decides what in the State Department is TOP SECRET, SECRET, or CONFIDENTIAL.

That's the point you're not getting. Security classifications don't come engraved in stone from Mount Sinai. A new Department secretary takes over, get's handed something that had been marked by a predecessor TOP SECRET, and can decide right then and there, "I don't think that subject would cause any damage to the nation if it were publicly known. Declassify everything on that subject. Make it so."

Last edited by Ralph_Kirk; 08-18-2015 at 01:34 PM..
 
Old 08-18-2015, 01:40 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 12,720,160 times
Reputation: 5419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post
Are you insane, a total left wing kook, or something else?
Sorry if those choices don't sound right to you, but I am beginning to wonder if you wear a tinfoil hat reading a post like that.
I don't care if it is Bush/Cheney or Clinton/Gore, no former POTUS or VP is going to be in jeopardy of arrest traveling in other countries.
The USA would rain hellfire down on any government who attempted such an irresponsible act.
Nonsense. It certaqinly can happen in some states. See..

Bush trip to Switzerland called off amid threats of protests, legal action

Politifacts does agree with you though not completely. They hold there are at present no warrants or substantial threats to arrest Bush/Cheney. And it may well be that Bush/Cheney avoid the occasion to avoid demonstrations and the hoopla that would accompany an attempt to indict them. They are of course indictable over the torture treaty.

US would go into diplomatic outrage. But that is about it. We ain't going to war with Europe.

Quote:
HOWEVER, this thread is obviously not about Bush & Co, now is it.
So for Hillary supporters who would like nothing better than to use the (D) playbook of distraction/deflection to derail this subject, it will not work.

I will also post this since some of you never get to see unfavorable coverage of the (D's) on MSNBC, CNN or the big three. This latest flippant and arrogant comment she made (supposedly a joke) in light of the trouble she is in is very telling;




If that was fed to her by a speech writer of hers, I'd have to question whether they are trying to sink her. More likely it is coming from her because she has been making comments like this for decades (i.e. not baking cookies).
`
You seem to miss the obvious. The joke is mildly funny if you are not a right wing believer. She is not going to get any votes from right wing believers so she does not care if it offends you.
 
Old 08-18-2015, 02:05 PM
 
9,149 posts, read 4,218,896 times
Reputation: 10977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
That would be practically nobody elected or appointed directly out of anywhere except right out of the intelligence community. That's like expecting a presidential candidate to know how to fly Air Force One.





Those are the actual definitions right out of the book. Who makes those quite vague determinations? The Original Classification Authority. For the State Department, the OCA is Hillary Clinton, She is the person who, by her own opinion, decides what in the State Department is TOP SECRET, SECRET, or CONFIDENTIAL.

That's the point you're not getting. Security classifications don't come engraved in stone from Mount Sinai. A new Department secretary takes over, get's handed something that had been marked by a predecessor TOP SECRET, and can decide right then and there, "I don't think that subject would cause any damage to the nation if it were publicly known. Declassify everything on that subject. Make it so."
First of all, you were doing fine until you used an absurd comparative analogy of the potus knowing how to fly AFO.

I would assume that any incoming cabinet level member that might encounter classified information would at least be given a copy of "Keeping Secrets for Dummies", and made to attest they read it cover to cover.

As to your second point, if something is worthy of being classified by those in the know, yet Hillary decides it does not meet such a classification, does that mean it is not worthy to be classified?
Heck by that definition, her comment that she never sent anything classified might be correct, if to no one else, but her.

However I do not believe the American public is stupid enough to buy into the old saying of "if a tree falls in the forest, but no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound".
In some cases there are certainly judgment calls, but to think someone not schooled in what should be considered classified is then appointed to a position to where their lack of knowledge/judgment is all that matters, then why even have those designations.
Heck using your screwy example of a potus flying AFO, what good would it do to list the potus as 4th in line to fly the plane if the pilot, co-pilot and navigator were all incapacitated? Needless to say if he is not a polit on any level, why have him listed as someone expected to be able to have those skills.

`
 
Old 08-18-2015, 02:18 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 12,720,160 times
Reputation: 5419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post
First of all, you were doing fine until you used an absurd comparative analogy of the potus knowing how to fly AFO.

I would assume that any incoming cabinet level member that might encounter classified information would at least be given a copy of "Keeping Secrets for Dummies", and made to attest they read it cover to cover.

As to your second point, if something is worthy of being classified by those in the know, yet Hillary decides it does not meet such a classification, does that mean it is not worthy to be classified?
Heck by that definition, her comment that she never sent anything classified might be correct, if to no one else, but her.

However I do not believe the American public is stupid enough to buy into the old saying of "if a tree falls in the forest, but no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound".
In some cases there are certainly judgment calls, but to think someone not schooled in what should be considered classified is then appointed to a position to where their lack of knowledge/judgment is all that matters, then why even have those designations.
Heck using your screwy example of a potus flying AFO, what good would it do to list the potus as 4th in line to fly the plane of the pilot, co-pilot and navigator were all incapacitated? Needless to say if he is not a polit on any level , why have him listed as someone expected to be able to fly.

`
I really am having trouble deciding whether you are being deliberately obtuse or do not understand.

There is nothing simple about classification. Particularly as it often gets into how the information is obtained not what it is.

The SoS controls classification in a vast hunk of the government and has significant power to change the classification of stuff classified by others. The SoS has a large staff one of whose duties will be to deal with classified information and to be sure the SoS knows what she is dealing with. But this in no way impacts the ability of the SoS to determine what can be disclosed and to whom.

I would also note the President decides where AF1 goes even though he cannot fly it there himself.
 
Old 08-18-2015, 02:24 PM
 
9,149 posts, read 4,218,896 times
Reputation: 10977
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post



You seem to miss the obvious. The joke is mildly funny if you are not a right wing believer. She is not going to get any votes from right wing believers so she does not care if it offends you.
You do not have to be a right winger to think something is not funny. The trouble with liberals is they think anything can be joked about, even when it is a raw nerve. The refrain of "lighten up" is used if people do not find it funny, as if somehow you are too tight rear-ended. Guess what, I'd bet many political pundants (like Jon Stewart) would think she made a poor choice, if not at least thinking her timing was very bad.
Maybe a joke like that might get some laughs 2 years from now, but at the moment she is only trying to appease her koolaid drinkers with such a quip.

NEWFLASH - People such as yourself have shown you will vote for her no matter what, so she does not need to pander to your ilk.
Instead she needs to get beyond this scandal, and making light of it, and claiming it is all some right wing conspiracy is not appropriate. Her political future if not her ability to work in government again might be on the line, so this is clearly not the time to be arrogant and/or dismissive.
 
Old 08-18-2015, 02:33 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 12,720,160 times
Reputation: 5419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post
You do not have to be a right winger to think something is not funny. The trouble with liberals is they think anything can be joked about, even when it is a raw nerve. The refrain of "lighten up" is used if people do not find it funny, as if somehow you are too tight rear-ended. Guess what, I'd bet many political pundants (like Jon Stewart) would think she made a poor choice, if not at least thinking her timing was very bad.
Maybe a joke like that might get some laughs 2 years from now, but at the moment she is only trying to appease her koolaid drinkers with such a quip.

NEWFLASH - People such as yourself have shown you will vote for her no matter what, so she does not need to pander to your ilk.
Instead she needs to get beyond this scandal, and making light of it, and claiming it is all some right wing conspiracy is not appropriate. Her political future if not her ability to work in government again might be on the line, so this is clearly not the time to be arrogant and/or dismissive.
It is mildly funny. I in fact heard it told elsewhere a couple of weeks ago. It hits a raw nerve only on the extreme right.

Those who will vote for Hillary are a large and varied crew. They will not in general pay much attention to the whole email thing...in general it will be passed off as more right wing political noise not a serious problem.

At this point I am not even completely sure who the Dem will be though I think Hillary is way out in front.

And if the right continues as it is going not only do we get Hillary but likely a Dem Senate. So continue the good work
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top