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.
FYI: This is the most common deflection her supporters use. They take you in circles, asking what law was broken, then distorting the context of what she actually did and her role in it so as to discredit the law from being applicable, then ask "what's the big deal?", starting the circle jerk all over again. The absence of evidence will be key in this little deflection...an absence created by Clinton herself. The issue is not whether she broke a law, its that we can't tell because she destroyed the evidence.
Quote:
In sum, Clinton’s exclusive use of private email makes it difficult to know with certainty whether she complied with rules governing transparency, recordkeeping and security. We may never know what emails she deleted. Additionally, we may never know the details of her conversations with the State Department officials who briefed her on records management and security, and why they agreed to let her use a private email exclusively.
If you are understanding to the type of stuff she would discuss over email, you'd know she broke the law, but we will never have the evidence because she destroyed it. That's why I will not indulge in your attempts of obfuscation.
Last edited by billydaman; 09-08-2015 at 11:32 PM..
FYI: This is the most common deflection her supporters use. They take you in circles, asking what law was broken, then distorting the context of what she actually did and her role in it so as to discredit the law from being applicable, then ask "what's the big deal?", starting the circle jerk all over again. The absence of evidence will be key in this little deflection...an absence created by Clinton herself. The issue is not whether she broke a law, its that we can't tell because she destroyed the evidence.
If you are understanding to the type of stuff she would discuss over email, you'd know she broke the law, but we will never have the evidence because she destroyed it. That's why I will not indulge in your attempts of obfuscation.
Certainly it matters if she broke a law.
You don't prosecute people if they haven't broken the law. And believe me, if she broke the law on this -- the law as it was at the time -- then she should be prosecuted.
If you cannot prove she broke a law, back off.
Like it or not, that's the American system of justice.
And the fact that you're really just another get Hillary at all cost advocate is why I will not indulge in your attempts of obfuscation.
You don't prosecute people if they haven't broken the law. And believe me, if she broke the law on this -- the law as it was at the time -- then she should be prosecuted.
If you cannot prove she broke a law, back off.
Like it or not, that's the American system of justice.
And the fact that you're really just another get Hillary at all cost advocate is why I will not indulge in your attempts of obfuscation.
That is the problem I have with you guys....You want it to be about whether or not she broke the law, or if she should be prosecuted, despite admitting she destroyed the evidence that would/could prove she broke or did not break the law and in spite of no one really saying she should be prosecuted. Your argument is idiotic. "Show me where she broke the law in regards to her email after she destroyed the email". Not a single person in this thread has stated she should be prosecuted, and certainly not me, this is a myth created by her supporters and you to obfuscate the issue.
Honestly, do you work for her campaign? I can point to this same argument made in several other forums, almost verbatim. Just stop with your despicable, disingenuous straw man and you want to pretend I'm a Hillary hater.....while you sit there and make **** up. Get real bro...
The only reason you make this argument is because you know she destroyed any evidence that could potentially be criminal. You are only fooling yourself. Read the last line in my OP...I foresaw this idiocy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billydaman
As you noticed, none of my reasons discussed the legal aspects of this thing. It's a red herring designed to deflect from larger issues I've raised. This is not a conservative witch hunt. There are significant issues with her decision and execution of operating a private server while in one of the most sensitive positions in the US government.
Address the issues in my OP before you start talking about not addressing obfuscation, otherwise, I'll write you off as a tool of HRC's campaign, who only want to pivot out of her gross negligence as the Sectary of State in regards to oversight and transparency. "I'm transparent but I deleted several thousands of emails (outside of oversight) from the email server I started so that I conduct the business of the State Department more conveniently" I do not need to be a HRC hater to know how absurd that is. You are seriously asking me to take her word for it, that she did not discuss classified information? I guess you have no idea who Nixon was...
Last edited by billydaman; 09-09-2015 at 01:36 AM..
That is the problem I have with you guys....You want it to be about whether or not she broke the law, or if she should be prosecuted, despite admitting she destroyed the evidence that would/could prove she broke or did not break the law and in spite of no one really saying she should be prosecuted. Your argument is idiotic. "Show me where she broke the law in regards to her email after she destroyed the email". Not a single person in this thread has stated she should be prosecuted, and certainly not me, this is a myth created by her supporters and you to obfuscate the issue.
Honestly, do you work for her campaign? I can point to this same argument made in several other forums, almost verbatim. Just stop with your despicable, disingenuous straw man and you want to pretend I'm a Hillary hater.....while you sit there and make **** up. Get real bro...
The only reason you make this argument is because you know she destroyed any evidence that could potentially be criminal. You are only fooling yourself. Read the last line in my OP...I foresaw this idiocy.
Address the issues in my OP before you start talking about not addressing obfuscation, otherwise, I'll write you off as a tool of HRC's campaign, who only want to pivot out of her gross negligence as the Sectary of State in regards to oversight and transparency. "I'm transparent but I deleted several thousands of emails from the email server I started so that I conduct the business of the State Department more conveniently" I do not need to be a HRC hater to know how absurd that is. You are seriously asking me to take her word for it, that she did not discuss classified information? I guess you have no idea who Nixon was...
I didn't support Hillary in her first run for the presidency and I don't support her now. I am a Democrat, and I strongly prefer Joe Biden. If she is the nominee I will hold my nose and vote for her because I will never again vote for a Republican regressive.
Frankly, I think that with today's technology the FBI will be able to save sufficient evidence to prosecute, if it ever existed on the drive to begin with. And, as I said before, if there is evidence, charge her with a crime, which is fine by me.
But in this country we aren't supposed to persecute people we can't prosecute. One is innocent until proven guilty. Sorry, that's the law and the American way. Bro.
But in this country we aren't supposed to persecute people we can't prosecute. One is innocent until proven guilty. Sorry, that's the law and the American way. Bro.
Except I'm not saying to prosecute her. Who are you arguing against? Stop beating this straw-man. What do you not understand about this?
Quote:
Frankly, I think that with today's technology the FBI will be able to save sufficient evidence to prosecute, if it ever existed on the drive to begin with. And, as I said before, if there is evidence, charge her with a crime, which is fine by me.
You are now willfully ignoring the bigger issue. We will never know for sure what emails she sent or received as Sectary of State. The only people who know for absolute certainty is her and her team. That is the issue and it's the issue that keeps this in the news and will ultimately destroy her candidacy. The FBI will never know about emails that were permanently erased. Plus, you keep talking about "prosecution". The issue is she destroyed anything that could be used to prosecute her. Besides, the government wont press a case if it means publicly disclosing classified information, this is why you do not see many people charged with mishandling information, unless that information is already in the public realm. I'm telling you she wont be prosecuted. Yet, you are pretending I'm saying vice versa.
For those who want proof -- a second review showed she had HIGHLY CLASSIFIED material that she both received and sent in her unsecure emails. This is the liberal NYT so don't say it's the vast right wing conspiracy.
What more proof do you guys need that she broke the law and endangered our country????
These were sattelite data and drone info on North Korea weapons, imagine the material she didn't want us to see and wiped clean!
Typical liberal retort, attack the arguer, not the argument. Policy, laws and regulations do not stop applying because you are a high-level official. The amount of "access" I've had would stun a team of oxen in their tracks (a little West Wing-parlance).
More right wing BS. You are the one who asserted a privileged view based upon your position.
I simple counter you are nothing but a security clerical with no relevant experience.
If you do not want your experience examined don't list it. And particularly do not claim expertise when you can easily be shown to have none.
And from the defensiveness of your posts it is clear you are not suited to higher office.
More right wing BS. You are the one who asserted a privileged view based upon your position.
I simple counter you are nothing but a security clerical with no relevant experience.
If you do not want your experience examined don't list it. And particularly do not claim expertise when you can easily be shown to have none.
And from the defensiveness of your posts it is clear you are not suited to higher office.
My previous position had nothing to do with the actions of HRC and her private email server. You are attacking me because no matter what argument you make, you can't defend her actions. I'm not right-wing either, that would be another Ad Hominem/strawman. Hint: There are intelligent people in on this forum who do not discuss stuff from a partisan perspective. Obviously, you are not one of them. You are the typical liberal spin meister.
My previous position had nothing to do with the actions of HRC and her private email server. You are attacking me because no matter what argument you make, you can't defend her actions. I'm not right-wing either, that would be another Ad Hominem/strawman. Hint: There are intelligent people in on this forum who do not discuss stuff from a partisan perspective. Obviously, you are not one of them. You are the typical liberal spin meister.
Uhh again no.
If you have a point make it. If you wish to cite your expertise based upon your position expect it to be pointed out that you are a clerical security guy not a head of a major executive dept.
Of course I can defend her actions. As SofS she could do what she choose to do with respect to her email service.
And if she says it was not classified...it was not classified. You wish to argue with your superior but you have no right to dispute her authority.
And it is easy to check my views. I am not in the least liberal. I am however stoutly opposed to Right Wing BS.
I will fully agree that what she did was pretty dumb. But that is a political not governmental view.
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.
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.
