- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
So the appeal to authority fallacy.
As you wish. I consider it prudent modesty.
So the appeal to authority fallacy.
As you wish. I consider it prudent modesty.
Blindly follow political pundits that agree with me, with no consideration to the facts!
I don't see much ideology in this discussion.
I do. You have openly stated that she is violating the wall, when asked why you link to a pundits claims, all of which have been answered here using the official law. Then you still made claims not backed up by factual information, had when asked to provide the backing behind the claims the reply is, "I cant because of modesty. And look I have pundits making accusations" (all of which have been proven false). Its clear there is an ideology. You dont like her. I get it it. But you not liking her, does not mean she broke the law.
Actually, I would vote for her in preference to some of the Repubs. Your faith that the allegations "have been answered" is touching. I think this matter has a long way to go. My guess is that Obama political operators are behind this story.
:lamo Yup Obama is all behind it.
Many of his people from 2012 favor Elizabeth Warren.
Wow... Is the tin foil about to come out?
:lamo Yup Obama is all behind it.
It's funny too because I remember a story from early 2009 where there was a bit of a dust up because Obama insisted that he be allowed to use his personal blackberry while president. Hmmmmmm...
Just so we're clear, the Secretary of State hardly needs an official email address (and especially doesn't need to cull out all the spam, viruses, and other junk). He or she has plenty of aides to handle correspondence.
That being said, doing government business from a personal email account is a definite no-no.
You asked for a link or a direct quote. I provided the link, and her email habit is well documented. Nice try.
Blindly follow political pundits that agree with me, with no consideration to the facts!
And how do they know she was conducting Federal business if they haven't seen the emails?
(And if they have seen the emails, why aren't they disclosing them?)
Although I don't think its a good idea that any government business be conduct on the less secure private e-mail systems, I believe that using private e-mail systems generally isn't the big problem as not providing business related correspondence for archiving is. I just don't understand why a government e-mail isn't assigned whenever someone assumes such a role.
The only reason it wouldn't be is that she told them not to.
The only reason it wouldn't be is that she told them not to.
Please show me in the law then where it states that? You were the one that claimed it does, now show me in the Act where it gives the US Federal Government the power to obtain private emails from federal officials.
Also you never answered my question: "Can you point to this amendment Bill Clinton signed into law?"
Do I "trust her"? For the most part no. I am no fan of Hilary Clinton's, I am not "#readyforHilary", I think she is another typical war hawk. But I am not going to falsely accuse her of breaking a law just because I dont like her.
Except what she did was legal when she did it. The law was changed after she left office. The Times seems to have left that little tidbit out of their story.
I feel the same way essentially, and it is incredible how sloppy this whole story was reported by supposedly legitimate news outlets. It's the kind of crap that would seem at home on a blog without editors, fact checkers, etc. asking simple questions such as which specific law did she break, is she doing anything different than previous SoS? The AP story about the 'homebrew' email system was just awful and about what you'd expect from a diary post at Daily Kos or Redstate. Pretty pathetic reporting all the way around from the premier "news" organizations.