• 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!

House Republican Proposes Bill To Prohibit Use Of Private Email Servers

Threegoofs said:
Well, given that you dont know what the emails contain since they are not releasing them, I'm not sure you can charge that something was done wrong
Click to expand...

:facepalm: Except that we do know. We know they contained details of ongoing clandestine operations, nuclear intelligence, troop movements, Foreign Government Information, signals intelligence, and imagery intelligence.

So yeah. We can.

As for earlier emails, I generally go with what I read from nonpartisan sources, and from the simple fact that the woman (or any of the people who knowingly emailed her this 'classified' information clearly knowing she was on a non-govt server) have not been prosecuted.
Click to expand...

The Obama Administration hasn't prosecuted its own former Secretary of State who is the Democrat party front runner for President? That's your evidence?

We have the actual proof in front of us. In her own hand. But you don't care.
 
cpwill said:
:facepalm: Except that we do know. We know they contained details of ongoing clandestine operations, nuclear intelligence, troop movements, Foreign Government Information, signals intelligence, and imagery intelligence.

So yeah. We can.



The Obama Administration hasn't prosecuted its own former Secretary of State who is the Democrat party front runner for President? That's your evidence?

We have the actual proof in front of us. In her own hand. But you don't care.
Click to expand...

As much as I believe your anonymous attribution, I'd like to see it from an unbiased source.

Because it sure looks to me like thats a bunch of hype. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officials-new-top-secret-clinton-emails-innocuous-n500586
 
Threegoofs said:
As much as I believe your anonymous attribution, I'd like to see it from an unbiased source.
Click to expand...

Then try 18 U.S. Code, sections 793, 1924, and the CAPCO manual.
 
cpwill said:
Then try 18 U.S. Code, sections 793, 1924, and the CAPCO manual.
Click to expand...

LOL. Yeah. Please send the book by post.

I kinda figured you couldn't come up with an unbiased reference. I guess bluster and faux expertise can fool most people though.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL. Yeah. Please send the book by post.
Click to expand...

Here you go.

I kinda figured you couldn't come up with an unbiased reference.
Click to expand...

The three links above you are the relevant law and the relevant manual demonstrating that what I am saying is correct.

If you'd like an unbiased look at Original Classification, try 22 CFR 9.4. You could also read through Executive Order 12598, and Executive Order 12333.

I guess bluster and faux expertise can fool most people though.
Click to expand...

:roll: people in this forum have known me for a decade or more now, and have met me in real life. I am exactly who I say I am. Enjoy reading.



Perhaps you'll answer the question that Iguanaman ran away from: If someone took classified information, and put that into an email that they sent over an unclassified server, in clear violation of Federal law, should they be prosecuted for it?
 
cpwill said:
That's not what I asked, is it. You are trying to spin and squirm out of this. I already addressed this. If someone took classified information and put it into an email on an unclassified network, should they be prosecuted. Should, as you suggested, the authors of these emails be the ones who get indicted.

Your unwillingness to answer this question indicates that you know that they are guilty of crimes, but don't wish to see them prosecuted due political tribalism, and aren't willing to admit it.
Click to expand...

And you fail to recognize that classified material can and has arisen entirely from non-classified and even non-govt. sources. That is how convoluted the whole system has gotten. Clearly when that is the case the prosecution of anyone would be difficult since they had no way of knowing what would later be determined to be classified.. You are dearly trying to make it all look so "cut and dry" when the opposite is true.
Information in a message can be declared classified years after it was initially sent. And the State Department and Intelligence Community can also look at the same text and come to opposite conclusions over whether it contains secret information.

And that’s where the discrepancies are arising between the Office of the Inspector General (IG) of Intelligence Community, Clinton’s campaign and the State Department.

The IG’s note to Congress on Tuesday addressed the distinction.

The watchdog said it found a number of Clinton’s emails that currently contained “classified intelligence community information.” But the State Department has said it did not consider that language classified at the time those emails were sent.

Both sides can be correct, said several former officials.
Click to expand...
Clinton emails reveal murky world of ‘top secret’ documents | TheHill
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
LOL. Yeah. Please send the book by post.

I kinda figured you couldn't come up with an unbiased reference. I guess bluster and faux expertise can fool most people though.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what anyone produces for you. You enjoy trolling too much to contribute anything meaningful.
 
cpwill said:
Here you go.



The three links above you are the relevant law and the relevant manual demonstrating that what I am saying is correct.

If you'd like an unbiased look at Original Classification, try 22 CFR 9.4. You could also read through Executive Order 12598, and Executive Order 12333.



:roll: people in this forum have known me for a decade or more now, and have met me in real life. I am exactly who I say I am. Enjoy reading.



Perhaps you'll answer the question that Iguanaman ran away from: If someone took classified information, and put that into an email that they sent over an unclassified server, in clear violation of Federal law, should they be prosecuted for it?
Click to expand...

Yes, I see the laws.

Where is the source that links Clinton to violating such laws? Yes, I'm sure you can pull one out at Brietbart, or Fox News, or The Blaze, or at rushlimbaugh.com, but certainly you must have another source rather than your own amateur legal sleuthing, right?
 
iguanaman said:
And you fail to recognize that classified material can and has arisen entirely from non-classified and even non-govt. sources. That is how convoluted the whole system has gotten. Clearly when that is the case the prosecution of anyone would be difficult since they had no way of knowing what would later be determined to be classified.. You are dearly trying to make it all look so "cut and dry" when the opposite is true.
Clinton emails reveal murky world of ‘top secret’ documents | TheHill
Click to expand...

The New Yorker has a nice article on this:

Hillary’s Problem: The Government Classifies Everything - The New Yorker

In one case, according to media reports, one of Clinton’s potentially classified e-mail exchanges is nothing more than a discussion of a newspaper story about drones. That such a discussion could be classified underlines the absurdity of the current system. But that is the system that exists, and if and when the agencies determine that she sent or received classified information through her private server, Clinton will be accused of mishandling national-security secrets.
Click to expand...
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes, I see the laws.

Where is the source that links Clinton to violating such laws? Yes, I'm sure you can pull one out at Brietbart, or Fox News, or The Blaze, or at rushlimbaugh.com, but certainly you must have another source rather than your own amateur legal sleuthing, right?
Click to expand...
:facepalm where do you think they are getting this from? The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, who was appointed by President Obama, and confirmed by a Democrat Senate.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Doesn't matter what anyone produces for you. You enjoy trolling too much to contribute anything meaningful.
Click to expand...
He's going to get down to insisting that unless the Obama administration prosecutes her for it, it didn't happen
 
Threegoofs said:
This is a REALLY SIMPLE exercise in reading comprehension.

Maybe it was confusing to you since I pulled TWO sentences out of the article rather than one. Let me repost just that one. I'll even bold one of the key words.

Read it, and then have a little think about how it doesnt jive with the first sentence of your post.
Click to expand...

I believe the word you're looking for is "jibe". ;)
 
Threegoofs said:
Well, when you find an unbiased source who says it, please let us all know.
Click to expand...
Try the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community. Appointed by Obama, confirmed be Senate Democrats. Not an unbiased source - but one biased (if in any direction) in the Obama administration's favor.
 
cpwill said:
Try the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community. Appointed by Obama, confirmed be Senate Democrats. Not an unbiased source - but one biased (if in any direction) in the Obama administration's favor.
Click to expand...

In a personal conversation with you?
 
cpwill said:
In official correspondence - are you really this out of the loop?
Click to expand...

Apparently.

Although I did see the official statement where the OIG specifically stated that it was not a criminal referral, versus your claims of a felony.

But I guess you know the law, but anonymous internet guy with no references isn't a real good unbiased source to me.
 
Threegoofs said:
Apparently.

Although I did see the official statement where the OIG specifically stated that it was not a criminal referral, versus your claims of a felony.

But I guess you know the law, but anonymous internet guy with no references isn't a real good unbiased source to me.
Click to expand...

:lol: You refuse to accept the law because it was linked to you on the internet. Hard, you have fallen.

WaPo: Clinton, using private server, wrote and sent e-mails now deemed classified

The Hill: Clinton Classified Emails now up to 1,340

AP: US Declares 22 Clinton Emails Top Secret
 
Threegoofs said:
Right. The emails were later marked classified.

Have you been following this thread?
Click to expand...

:) According to the CAPCO manual (linked for you) and US Laws and Regulations governing the classification of information (linked for you), the fact that they were later marked classified is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that they were classified when they were sent over unclassified servers, according, again, to the US laws and regulations governing classified information. The markings on a document or email don't determine it's classification - the information in it does.

A fact which has been public knowledge since August Reuters: Exclusive: Doezens of Clinton Emails were Classified from the start according to the same rules that cpwill has been referencing for you, but which you ignore because you are unwilling to accept information that tells you that Clinton is guilty.
 
cpwill said:
:) According to the CAPCO manual (linked for you) and US Laws and Regulations governing the classification of information (linked for you), the fact that they were later marked classified is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that they were classified when they were sent over unclassified servers, according, again, to the US laws and regulations governing classified information. The markings on a document or email don't determine it's classification - the information in it does.

A fact which has been public knowledge since August Reuters: Exclusive: Doezens of Clinton Emails were Classified from the start according to the same rules that cpwill has been referencing for you, but which you ignore because you are unwilling to accept information that tells you that Clinton is guilty.
Click to expand...

Yet the OIG, who YOU cited as the authority here, noted he specifically did not refer to this as 'criminal'.

I know you really, really want to believe it's criminal, but it looks like it's a pretty thin case.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yet the OIG, who YOU cited as the authority here, noted he specifically did not refer to this as 'criminal'.
Click to expand...

It's not his job to. That's the Justice Department's job. They won't do it, despite the FBI recommendation, because it's Hillary.

I know you really, really want to believe it's criminal, but it looks like it's a pretty thin case.
Click to expand...

:lol: dude, anybody but Hillary would have been in jail months ago.

1,340 individual felonies. And counting. :)
 
cpwill said:
It's not his job to. That's the Justice Department's job. They won't do it, despite the FBI recommendation, because it's Hillary.



:lol: dude, anybody but Hillary would have been in jail months ago.

1,340 individual felonies. And counting. :)
Click to expand...

Oh, wait.

Now there is an FBI recommendation?

Is that stronger than your weak OIG recommendation?

If so, why didn't you lead with the FBI one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom