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.
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what you or I know about the specific content of the emails.
As an Original Classification Authority at the head of Department level, the SecState makes the determination of what State Department information is classified, and has at least eye-to-eye authority with every other Original Classification authority below the Vice-President and President.
So if she wanted to give out nuclear launch codes, it would be fine?
So if she wanted to give out nuclear launch codes, it would be fine?
A. She wouldn't have them in the first place because the State Department doesn't create that information--she'd have to ask for them, and the SecDef would likely kick that request up to the President to decide if he must give them to her.
B. If she then decided to reveal those codes, it would still be up to the president to decide what he wanted to do with her.
A. She wouldn't have them in the first place because the State Department doesn't create that information--she'd have to ask for them, and the SecDef would likely kick that request up to the President to decide if he must give them to her.
B. If she then decided to reveal those codes, it would still be up to the president to decide what he wanted to do with her.
Your last sentence seems to be the most telling. It would be up to the president to decide. So if the president likes her and they are political allies, then nothing would happen. However, if he didn't like her, something would happen.
Wow, truly amazes me how if this were your average joe they'd be in prison for decades faster than a new york minute yet because she has money, influence, being the wife of an ex president and being a woman she is very likely to get off scot free! There is no justice in this world!
I sure wish I was rich, a politician and had friends in the highest of places, then I could steal loads of money from people and cover up information that got people killed and never have to worry about being caught!
Shouldn't this whole thread be moved to the True Crimes forum?
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what you or I know about the specific content of the emails.
As an Original Classification Authority at the head of Department level, the SecState makes the determination of what State Department information is classified, and has at least eye-to-eye authority with every other Original Classification authority below the Vice-President and President.
So she can decide to declassify information at her discretion. That is great. We are supposed to swallow that she can wave her wand and magically say there was no classified info on her server because she made it so. It really comes down to what the definition of is, is.
You simply don't understand what I do. I don't particularly like Hillary or any of the existing demo candidates.
But it is immaterial. I do not care for right wing idiocy. I probably would get annoyed by left wing idiocy as well but there is so little of it I don't get the chance.
So it is not who I am for...it is simply an opposition to idiocy. I take much the same view of illegal immigration which is also a sphere in which the antis dislay idiocy with great frequency. And they solve the problem by passing through the looking glass.
So no I probably would not post the same for GW...though I might jump in if idiots starting suggesting the President did not have the right to determine security classification of anything he has in his hands.
Well at least that is intellectually honest of your view, if not accurate from an importance standpoint.
For example, even though you probably think I am hard right, my political leanings are more nuanced even though I am going to be right of center more times than not. Still it did not keep me from being critical of Bush/Cheney during poor decision making such as unfunded mandates.
The problem I see too often with leftists is they will put party ahead of the country. I'd want a (R) thrown out of office if they put themselves ahead of the country.
Hence I despise Hillary for all the sleazy, deceptive, and flat out lying she does. The email/server issue is a perfect example, with every new lie discovered being excused by her koolaid drinkers. At what point do people say enough is enough, and we cannot have someone like that as president?
Ideologically, I cannot think of a single thing I agree with Bernie Sanders on, though I suspect there must be one or two things. Yet I'd likely vote for him over Hillary if those were my only two choices. The reason is simple.
Because he seems genuine and honest. That way I know where he stands, and what he intends to do even if I disagree with it.
Hillary on the other hand is a political opportunist who calculates everything based on what is in her own best interest. Hence the reason they had Susan Rice go on all the Sunday shows promoting the Benghazi youtube film fallacy. Hillary still got wrapped up in it by lying to the families and making a few public comments, but she knew it was a false narrative, and didn't want to face the Sunday hosts and further entangle herself.
Is there any doubt in your mind she had a private server for political reasons, so she would not have to answer for her actions, views, and shenanigans?
What I don't understand is how her apologists don't abandon her once it has been shown that virtually every excuse/reason she gave in the UN press conference was a lie?
Really, what will it take for you and others to drop your support and go with an honest (D) running for office?
If Sanders is not your cup of tea, maybe Jim Webb, O'Malley, even VP Biden if he decides to throw his hat into the ring.
That was your boy Cruz acted like a teenager leading a pep rally, and that shut the government down. When there was no money to pay for services, would you have preferred shutting down air traffic control towers, the military, Medicare, not send out Social Security payments? What would be your pick?
Oh please! They put barriers in front of open-air memorials and on the shoulders of highways in front of monuments. That was ridiculous. At least Cruz wanted to do what congress is supposed to do and be a check on the Executive branch. As it is, we have a king where the president has the executive power and the regulatory power all by himself, hence the reason he could target the closures to things the people felt instead of the bureaucracy. The only power congress has is in funding the projects.
The bottom line is that even if nothing comes of this legally, it still looks really bad.
What she did may not be technically illegal but the way it's been handled has impacted how non-partisans view her honesty and forthrightness.
She also doesn't have the teflon charisma of her hubby to sidestep stuff with obvious weaseling (definition of "is") or to be fair other pols like Reagan (Iran Contra).
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.
Shouldn't this whole thread be moved to the True Crimes forum?
