• 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!

Ethics Watchdog Puts Hillary Clinton in a League of Her Own[W:59]

Re: Ethics Watchdog Puts Hillary Clinton in a League of Her Own

imyoda said:
You cannot argue with sound reasoning......even if there are no facts to support a predetermined belief...........
Click to expand...

???

I really wish you wouldn't respond to my posts, since you seem to have a hard time making a lick of sense.
 
Re: Ethics Watchdog Puts Hillary Clinton in a League of Her Own

Mycroft said:
???

I really wish you wouldn't respond to my posts, since you seem to have a hard time making a lick of sense.
Click to expand...
Of course the confusion MUST be mine..........But you do not seem to have any trouble understanding what I mean.......... I'll struggle on.........miracle's do happen from time to time
 
Re: Ethics Watchdog Puts Hillary Clinton in a League of Her Own

imyoda said:
Of course the confusion MUST be mine..........But you do not seem to have any trouble understanding what I mean.......... I'll struggle on.........miracle's do happen from time to time
Click to expand...

Didn't you read my post? I said you have a hard time making a lick of sense. That means I do, indeed, have trouble understanding what you mean. So, yes...the confusion IS, of course, yours...or, rather, you inability to express yourself in a way that normal people can understand.

Anyway...keep on struggling. Maybe one day, you'll improve.
 
Re: Ethics Watchdog Puts Hillary Clinton in a League of Her Own

Mycroft said:
Didn't you read my post? I said you have a hard time making a lick of sense. That means I do, indeed, have trouble understanding what you mean. So, yes...the confusion IS, of course, yours...or, rather, you inability to express yourself in a way that normal people can understand.

Anyway...keep on struggling. Maybe one day, you'll improve.
Click to expand...


Please let's try to get back on subject......rather than trying to make me the subject...........they have rules against that you know!
 
Re: Ethics Watchdog Puts Hillary Clinton in a League of Her Own

imyoda said:
Please let's try to get back on subject......rather than trying to make me the subject...........they have rules against that you know!
Click to expand...

Oh...I'm all for getting you onto SOME kind of understandable subject. Let me know when you get there. You can start by restating whatever it was you were saying when you first responded to my post...hopefully in a manner that makes sense.
 
Re: Ethics Watchdog Puts Hillary Clinton in a League of Her Own

Mycroft said:
Oh...I'm all for getting you onto SOME kind of understandable subject. Let me know when you get there. You can start by restating whatever it was you were saying when you first responded to my post...hopefully in a manner that makes sense.
Click to expand...

As the same as the author of the string has not proven.........where are the ethical breaches?

He sure has no idea........

and seems to confuse recent events which may or may not have included input by HC as "ethical" lapses......

Rather than trying to make me the subject of the string........(of which I am not).......maybe you can clarify what the author claims as ethical errors HC has made?


That would be a real positive clarification of the subject of the string......... Couldya?
 
Re: Ethics Watchdog Puts Hillary Clinton in a League of Her Own

imyoda said:
As the same as the author of the string has not proven.........where are the ethical breaches?

He sure has no idea........

and seems to confuse recent events which may or may not have included input by HC as "ethical" lapses......

Rather than trying to make me the subject of the string........(of which I am not).......maybe you can clarify what the author claims as ethical errors HC has made?


That would be a real positive clarification of the subject of the string......... Couldya?
Click to expand...

I've made my comments about the OP's article in post #19.

If you want to discuss the content of that article, perhaps you should present your opinion...whether you agree with or dispute the content...instead of assuming that I am taking a position I have not presented and asking me to defend such a position.

On the other hand, if all you need is clarification about the statements made by the author of the article, you would probably be better served by contacting the author directly.
 
Re: Ethics Watchdog Puts Hillary Clinton in a League of Her Own

Moderator's Warning:
Knock it off you two. No more posts addressing each other instead of addressing the topic of the thread.

imyoda said:
As the same as the author of the string has not proven.........where are the ethical breaches?

He sure has no idea........

and seems to confuse recent events which may or may not have included input by HC as "ethical" lapses......

Rather than trying to make me the subject of the string........(of which I am not).......maybe you can clarify what the author claims as ethical errors HC has made?


That would be a real positive clarification of the subject of the string......... Couldya?
Click to expand...

Mycroft said:
I've made my comments about the OP's article in post #19.

If you want to discuss the content of that article, perhaps you should present your opinion...whether you agree with or dispute the content...instead of assuming that I am taking a position I have not presented and asking me to defend such a position.

On the other hand, if all you need is clarification about the statements made by the author of the article, you would probably be better served by contacting the author directly.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Ethics Watchdog Puts Hillary Clinton in a League of Her Own

Agreed............
 
Re: Ethics Watchdog Puts Hillary Clinton in a League of Her Own

joG said:
Actually, that is worse than the bias in the entry you are replying to being even narrower. On the other hand his generalization is more sweeping and almost racist in its referral to a large population.
Click to expand...

"What race are you?"
"AMERICAN!"
 
Re: Ethics Watchdog Puts Hillary Clinton in a League of Her Own

Kal'Stang said:
First, try not to cherry pick and include the whole thing...



So, what is wrong about this? You think that its not unethical to use a private email server to conduct government business that is often classified? Or do you really believe that she just used it for personal things such as weddings and such?
Click to expand...

There's no cherry picking. You asked for any examples of them being wrong, and I gave you an example. How is that cherry picking, or are you unfamiliar with what the term means?

And what is wrong with that is that they accuse her of committing a crime even though she hasn't even been charged with one, nevermind convicted. In addition, what they state in support of that claim (ie "Secretary Clinton conducted government business on her private email server ") is neither a crime, nor any type of wrongdoing
 
Re: Ethics Watchdog Puts Hillary Clinton in a League of Her Own

sangha said:
There's no cherry picking. You asked for any examples of them being wrong, and I gave you an example. How is that cherry picking, or are you unfamiliar with what the term means?

And what is wrong with that is that they accuse her of committing a crime even though she hasn't even been charged with one, nevermind convicted. In addition, what they state in support of that claim (ie "Secretary Clinton conducted government business on her private email server ") is neither a crime, nor any type of wrongdoing
Click to expand...

You do know that tons of people that are eventually charged with a crime are not charged until AFTER LEO's do a full investigation with the exception of them catching people right in the middle of the criminal act right? That whole "Hillary hasn't committed a crime because she hasn't even been charged with one" is nothing more than a BS meme spouted to try and excuse what she did because atm she is the Democrats best hope to try and accomplish what they want accomplished. Hell, they'd prolly even excuse murder at this point.

And yes, it is illegal to send/receive classified material on a private email server. It has to be one linked to the government. Using a private email server is a violation of the Federal Records Act. For example Won Ho Lee was charged with (and pleaded guilty to) illegal retention of national defense information back in 1999... Long before Hillary was SoS. He might have even been charged with more except the courts at the time said that if that were to happen then that information would have to become public, which of course couldn't be allowed to happen since it was obviously the kind of material that shouldn't come out.

And yes, i'm quite familiar with the term "cherry picking". It's where you take one part of a whole to try and make a case while ignoring the rest of the context. Lib's and Con's do it all the time to try and smear each other.
 
Re: Ethics Watchdog Puts Hillary Clinton in a League of Her Own

Kobie said:
"What race are you?"
"AMERICAN!"
Click to expand...

Just a wider definition of "racist" not infrequently used in psychology, though, I grant you that one maybe should use xenophobic or some such more appropriately.
 
Re: Ethics Watchdog Puts Hillary Clinton in a League of Her Own

Kal'Stang said:
You do know that tons of people that are eventually charged with a crime are not charged until AFTER LEO's do a full investigation with the exception of them catching people right in the middle of the criminal act right? That whole "Hillary hasn't committed a crime because she hasn't even been charged with one" is nothing more than a BS meme spouted to try and excuse what she did because atm she is the Democrats best hope to try and accomplish what they want accomplished. Hell, they'd prolly even excuse murder at this point.
Click to expand...

Your wall of text will not obscure the fact that she did not abuse her office.

And yes, it is illegal to send/receive classified material on a private email server. It has to be one linked to the government. Using a private email server is a violation of the Federal Records Act. For example Won Ho Lee was charged with (and pleaded guilty to) illegal retention of national defense information back in 1999... Long before Hillary was SoS. He might have even been charged with more except the courts at the time said that if that were to happen then that information would have to become public, which of course couldn't be allowed to happen since it was obviously the kind of material that shouldn't come out.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It is not illegal to receive classified data particularly if it wasn't classified until after it was received.

And yes, i'm quite familiar with the term "cherry picking". It's where you take one part of a whole to try and make a case while ignoring the rest of the context. Lib's and Con's do it all the time to try and smear each other.
Click to expand...

You don't understand what cherry-picking is.
 
Re: Ethics Watchdog Puts Hillary Clinton in a League of Her Own

sangha said:
Your wall of text will not obscure the fact that she did not abuse her office.

Wrong. It is not illegal to receive classified data particularly if it wasn't classified until after it was received.

You don't understand what cherry-picking is.
Click to expand...

Looks like you are reduced to nothing more than one liners and repeating yourself. My work is done here. Bye.
 
Re: Ethics Watchdog Puts Hillary Clinton in a League of Her Own

Kal'Stang said:
Looks like you are reduced to nothing more than one liners and repeating yourself. My work is done here. Bye.
Click to expand...

Kal, maybe its me but I don't think your work is done. You seem to think that it violates some rule to have a private email server. It doesn't. guess what, it still doesn't. It just seems like you don't want to debate the issue lest you find out you're wrong hence your desire to leave.
 
Re: Ethics Watchdog Puts Hillary Clinton in a League of Her Own

Vern said:
Kal, maybe its me but I don't think your work is done. You seem to think that it violates some rule to have a private email server. It doesn't. guess what, it still doesn't. It just seems like you don't want to debate the issue lest you find out you're wrong hence your desire to leave.
Click to expand...

It's not illegal to have a private email server. No one said otherwise. It is however illegal to hold classified information on that private email server. Federal Records Act.
 
Re: Ethics Watchdog Puts Hillary Clinton in a League of Her Own

Kal'Stang said:
It's not illegal to have a private email server. No one said otherwise. It is however illegal to hold classified information on that private email server. Federal Records Act.
Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:
Using a private email server is a violation of the Federal Records Act.
Click to expand...

and not for nothing kal, you seemed confused from the start.

Kal'Stang said:
So, what is wrong about this? You think that its not unethical to use a private email server to conduct government business that is often classified? Or do you really believe that she just used it for personal things such as weddings and such?
Click to expand...

were they "often classified"? (that question is in direct response to your post as opposed to the "questions" you "asked" as if they were valid points). I'm not aware they were. If they were, it would have been a violation to use a .gov address because that server is not for classified info either. Hillary is not under investigation because she received emails that had info that was classified after the fact. Oh, just so you know, when you and every conservative convince yourself that "corruption" is the reason she was never charged, that will also be exact impression the conservative media wants you to get.
 
Re: Ethics Watchdog Puts Hillary Clinton in a League of Her Own

Kal'Stang said:
Looks like you are reduced to nothing more than one liners and repeating yourself. My work is done here. Bye.
Click to expand...

Ironic given your post is a one-liner
 
Re: Ethics Watchdog Puts Hillary Clinton in a League of Her Own

Vern said:
and not for nothing kal, you seemed confused from the start.
Click to expand...

Consider the context that we're talking in. Should have been fairly obvious what I was talking about from the start. Do I really have to spell every single little thing out or can I assume that people around here have at least some intelligence to be able to consider the context?

Vern said:
were they "often classified"? (that question is in direct response to your post as opposed to the "questions" you "asked" as if they were valid points). I'm not aware they were. If they were, it would have been a violation to use a .gov address because that server is not for classified info either. Hillary is not under investigation because she received emails that had info that was classified after the fact. Oh, just so you know, when you and every conservative convince yourself that "corruption" is the reason she was never charged, that will also be exact impression the conservative media wants you to get.
Click to expand...

Classified info is supposed to go through certain addresses. I don't know what those are as I'm not in the loop on that. I do know that classified info is not supposed to go to a private email server.

That whole "classified after the fact" thing is also BS as there are some things that are considered classified the moment that they are created. Such as emails to diplomats. Doesn't even matter if that email to that diplomat is just about what kind of dinner they're going to have, it is automatically considered as classified the moment it is created. It can get declassified later on down the line. But until that time it is considered classified. Do you know why emails to diplomats are considered automatically classified? (there are at least two reasons that I can think of off the top of my head)
 
Re: Ethics Watchdog Puts Hillary Clinton in a League of Her Own

Kal'Stang said:
Consider the context that we're talking in. Should have been fairly obvious what I was talking about from the start. Do I really have to spell every single little thing out or can I assume that people around here have at least some intelligence to be able to consider the context?



Classified info is supposed to go through certain addresses. I don't know what those are as I'm not in the loop on that. I do know that classified info is not supposed to go to a private email server.

That whole "classified after the fact" thing is also BS as there are some things that are considered classified the moment that they are created. Such as emails to diplomats. Doesn't even matter if that email to that diplomat is just about what kind of dinner they're going to have, it is automatically considered as classified the moment it is created. It can get declassified later on down the line. But until that time it is considered classified. Do you know why emails to diplomats are considered automatically classified? (there are at least two reasons that I can think of off the top of my head)
Click to expand...

This might help.
Classified information doesn't go over the internet. It goes over a sealed network. Someone had copy the information from the SIPRNet and move it to a computer that had access to the internet. When they did that they also stripped the classified markings from the information the copied, which is a felony in itself.

WASHINGTON — F.B.I. agents investigating Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email server are seeking to determine who at the State Department passed highly classified information from secure networks to Mrs. Clinton’s personal account, according to law enforcement and diplomatic officials and others briefed on the investigation.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/u...hillary-clinton-at-state-department.html?_r=0

The FBI is NOT investigating what the server DID. They are investigating who did what with the server and all 1000 classified documents on her server, who stripped the markings off the documents and how the documents made it onto her server. In addition they are investigating why she was using a private server to store classified documents and pulling the deleted emails off the server. Evidently they were just deleted or a low level wipe was done. They are confident they can pull most of the deleted emails, if not all, form the server.

The Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) is "a system of interconnected computer networks used by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of State to transmit classified information (up to and including information classified SECRET) by packet switching over the TCP/IP protocols in a 'completely secure' environment".
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNet
 
Re: Ethics Watchdog Puts Hillary Clinton in a League of Her Own

Kal'Stang said:
Consider the context that we're talking in. Should have been fairly obvious what I was talking about from the start. Do I really have to spell every single little thing out or can I assume that people around here have at least some intelligence to be able to consider the context?
Click to expand...
Kal, see what you did there. You claimed in the form of a question that I took something out of context. And in the question you implied it was some sort of failure on my part for not understanding. You in no way tried to explain or clarify what I didn’t understand. And I still don’t understand. Please help me understand the context I’m missing where you said “nobody said she did something illegal” after you said “she did something illegal”.
That whole "classified after the fact" thing is also BS as there are some things that are considered classified the moment that they are created
Click to expand...
Again it looks like you have the exact impression the conservative media wants you to have. Hillary didn’t get emails with “CLASSIFIED” stamped across the top. She received emails that were not marked as classified. Use the NYT link in Nobaddog’s post and see where the state dept clearly stated they weren’t initially considered classified.
“They were not marked as classified, the State Department has said, and it is unclear whether its employees knew the origin of the information.”

Which brings up a good point. See how you still have the “classified after the fact is BS” when its established they weren’t marked as classified. Nobaddog has moved on to “who stripped off the classified off the documents” because he too seems to be aware that they weren’t marked as classified. But even this new and improved narrative requires one to ignore that the state dept clearly stated they weren’t marked as classified

“They were not marked as classified, the State Department has said, and it is unclear whether its employees knew the origin of the information.”
 
Re: Ethics Watchdog Puts Hillary Clinton in a League of Her Own

Vern said:
Kal, see what you did there. You claimed in the form of a question that I took something out of context. And in the question you implied it was some sort of failure on my part for not understanding. You in no way tried to explain or clarify what I didn’t understand. And I still don’t understand. Please help me understand the context I’m missing where you said “nobody said she did something illegal” after you said “she did something illegal”.
Click to expand...

If you don't know or understand the context of what we're talking about then you should learn it before continuing with this discussion.

Vern said:
Again it looks like you have the exact impression the conservative media wants you to have. Hillary didn’t get emails with “CLASSIFIED” stamped across the top. She received emails that were not marked as classified. Use the NYT link in Nobaddog’s post and see where the state dept clearly stated they weren’t initially considered classified.
“They were not marked as classified, the State Department has said, and it is unclear whether its employees knew the origin of the information.”

Which brings up a good point. See how you still have the “classified after the fact is BS” when its established they weren’t marked as classified. Nobaddog has moved on to “who stripped off the classified off the documents” because he too seems to be aware that they weren’t marked as classified. But even this new and improved narrative requires one to ignore that the state dept clearly stated they weren’t marked as classified

“They were not marked as classified, the State Department has said, and it is unclear whether its employees knew the origin of the information.”
Click to expand...

1: Hillary was the SoS. She knew what type of information is considered classified and what isn't. In fact it was part of her job to know. Regardless if they were marked "classified" or not. If she didn't consider any of the emails that were on her private email server as being classified that have been identified by the FBI as being classified then she was extremely incompetent AT BEST. And that's being nice. At worst she knew very well that information was classified the moment she saw them, in which case she should have put a stop to such information being disseminated to private email servers. The fact that she didn't, and continued to receive them means that she was breaking the law. Considering the amount of emails that were deemed as classified by the FBI I find it extremely hard to believe that she didn't even once actually consider at the very least SOME of them to be classified. Unless she is extremely stupid. So stupid as to be not fit for a secretary position in a private mom and pop store, much less be POTUS or SoS.

2: It's not that hard to copy classified information without using the classified tag. Simply re-type the information into a separate window/program and boom, you can resend it without the classified tag. Hell, if ya had to you could print the information out and use a completely different computer and resend it as an email to bypass any type of security that original computer had on it.

3: The State Department has a dog in this fight. If its determined that they purposely sent classified emails to Hillary's private email server then those in the State Department that did this are in just as much hot water as Hillary should be in right now. So what they say in this matter is highly suspect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom