• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Everything Is Always Watergate: Clinton Email Edition

code1211 said:
There's no conspiracy in this.

Hillary is a crook and anyone, an-y-one, employed by the government who received or sent an email from or to her private server is culpable and complicit in this obviously illegal activity.

There is no doubt about the illegality. That is not in question. The only issue is whether or not her cover up will hold up.
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton did not erase or change codes on emails

Don't believe me? Read what the IG has to say.

http://images.politico.com/global/2015/07/24/icighillltrreemails.pdf
 
pbrauer said:
Hillary Clinton did not erase or change codes on emails

Don't believe me? Read what the IG has to say.

http://images.politico.com/global/2015/07/24/icighillltrreemails.pdf
Click to expand...



Did I imply that she did?

The fact that she did not is what the receivers or senders of the email communication should have noticed.

The fact that they either ignored it like the sheep they are or endorsed it by noticing it and using anyway it indicates both their corruption and/or incompetence.

What is the nugget in the link you attached? Please cut an paste whatever it is that you think makes housing classified materials outside of the care of the State Department legal.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Haha, that's so funny. I just heard the exact same thing on Rush Limbaugh and now the dittoheads are spouting it like good little parrots. He even said snail mail and carrier pigeons, lol.

My guess would be there is a private server that she would log in to to view it, or printed copies etc. I can't imagine email is the best method for top secret intel.

Btw, so far, none of those 300+ emails were classified when they were emailed to her. The ones I've heard of were classified after being sent to her and now the FBI is just ensuring that the private server was never breached. I haven't heard of a single illegal thing she's done thus far.
Click to expand...

You do realise that thousands of TS emails are sent every single day. There are entire networks set up just for this purpose.
 
Jack Hays said:
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton has said she didn't send or receive classified emails. As it turns out she was incorrect because at the time she had them it wasn't known they were classified. Did you notice the title of the Washington Post story? Clinton, using private server, wrote and sent e-mails now deemed classified. Which says the email controversy is a political problem and not a legal one. The other two sources, the Wasihigton Times and Fox News, are right wing and are not credible.
 
pbrauer said:
Hillary Clinton has said she didn't send or receive classified emails. As it turns out she was incorrect because at the time she had them it wasn't known they were classified. Did you notice the title of the Washington Post story? Clinton, using private server, wrote and sent e-mails now deemed classified. Which says the email controversy is a political problem and not a legal one. The other two sources, the Wasihigton Times and Fox News, are right wing and are not credible.
Click to expand...

Under the law it does not matter whether the information was properly marked.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL It matters when the documents were not classified until after she received them.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. It's the information that's classified, not any particular document, and if the document is improperly marked that does not change the information's classification.
 
Jack Hays said:
Wrong again. It's the information that's classified, not any particular document, and if the document is improperly marked that does not change the information's classification.
Click to expand...

Oh Jack, letting your suggestive imagination get the best of you again?

Unless she knowingly mishandled classified information, she's innocent from a legal standpoint. You should know this by now...
 
Absentglare said:
Oh Jack, letting your suggestive imagination get the best of you again?

Unless she knowingly mishandled classified information, she's innocent from a legal standpoint. You should know this by now...
Click to expand...

Love it

So she was too stupid to know what was classified and what wasn't on a private server that was set up for the explicit purpose of circumventing Congressional subpoena's ?

And you think she's competent enough to be our next President ?

Maybe the problem isn't Hillary, maybe its the American voter, right ?
 
Fenton said:
Love it

So she was too stupid to know what was classified and what wasn't on a private server that was set up for the explicit purpose of circumventing Congressional subpoena's ?

And you think she's competent enough to be our next President ?

Maybe the problem isn't Hillary, maybe its the American voter, right ?
Click to expand...

LOL You say that while Trump is the front runner in the GOP.
 
Jack Hays said:
Under the law it does not matter whether the information was properly marked.
Click to expand...

I didn't mention marking so I don't know why you brouht it up. It would have been useful if it was known the information was classified when she had it.
 
Fenton said:
Love it

So she was too stupid to know what was classified and what wasn't on a private server that was set up for the explicit purpose of circumventing Congressional subpoena's ?

And you think she's competent enough to be our next President ?

Maybe the problem isn't Hillary, maybe its the American voter, right ?
Click to expand...

My bold: You would have tough time proving that statement.
 
pbrauer said:
My bold: You would have tough time proving that statement.
Click to expand...

Also, it doesn't make any sense, because she still supplied her emails under subpoena. So she didn't actually avoid anything...
 
braindrain said:
You do realise that thousands of TS emails are sent every single day. There are entire networks set up just for this purpose.
Click to expand...

It's aklmost comical when the email just realeased are put on the screen.

Some are entirely blank; not a thing in the entire email, no word, no comma, no nothing was NOT classified.
 
pbrauer said:
Hillary Clinton has said she didn't send or receive classified emails. As it turns out she was incorrect because at the time she had them it wasn't known they were classified. Did you notice the title of the Washington Post story? Clinton, using private server, wrote and sent e-mails now deemed classified. Which says the email controversy is a political problem and not a legal one. The other two sources, the Wasihigton Times and Fox News, are right wing and are not credible.
Click to expand...

She was the Secretary of State.

If SHE mentioned another official from another country, that, by the rules of the State department, makes that a classified email.

If SHE then pressed "Send" on her personal email, she knew she was breaking the law.

If you contend that she did not know, then her defense is that she is an incompetent, ignorant boob with no business being in that position.

Her defense to preserve her bid to be the president is that she's an incompetent, ignorant boob.

Now THIS is the perfect Democrat!
 
iguanaman said:
LOL It matters when the documents were not classified until after she received them.
Click to expand...

You are trying to square this with her continuing narrowing of the comment that she made.

This is not particularly about her lies, although she obviously did lie, it is about whether or not she broke the law, which she obviously did.
 
Absentglare said:
Oh Jack, letting your suggestive imagination get the best of you again?

Unless she knowingly mishandled classified information, she's innocent from a legal standpoint. You should know this by now...
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

She is obviously guilty by her own description of what happened.

Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law : It's All Politics : NPR

<snip>
Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.
<snip>
 
code1211 said:
What are you talking about?

She is obviously guilty by her own description of what happened.

Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law : It's All Politics : NPR

<snip>
Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.
<snip>
Click to expand...

No one knew those documents were going to be made classified. The operative word is "knowingly". I am glad you are all sticking to the "legality" argument, that means when there are no legal charges there will be no more reason to discuss this.
 
code1211 said:
What are you talking about?

She is obviously guilty by her own description of what happened.

Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law : It's All Politics : NPR

<snip>
Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.
<snip>
Click to expand...

I don't understand your post.

Why are you trying to disagree with me while also proving me correct?
 
pbrauer said:
I didn't mention marking so I don't know why you brouht it up. It would have been useful if it was known the information was classified when she had it.
Click to expand...

She was the Secretary of State.

Are you asserting that she was stupid? Ignorant? Drugged?

What is it that excuses her willful breaking of the law?
 
iguanaman said:
No one knew those documents were going to be made classified. The operative word is "knowingly". I am glad you are all sticking to the "legality" argument, that means when there are no legal charges there will be no more reason to discuss this.
Click to expand...

AFTER the classification of the emails was made, any record or vestige of those email left on her server was Housed at an unauthorized location.

That is the legal test which she fails.

Only a politically motivated dupe with no concept of the truth would still support this buffoon.
 
Absentglare said:
I don't understand your post.

Why are you trying to disagree with me while also proving me correct?
Click to expand...

What is the point you are making that this proves?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom