• 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!

All of Donald Trump’s Accusers: A Timeline of Every Alleged Grope and Assault

eohrnberger said:
Bwaaa Ha Ha! You sure are funny.



These guys are some sort of an authority on the matter? No, more like they are part of the liberally biased media corruption and occlusion.

Hell, they admit they are liberal all on their own.



Founded by a couple of liberal hacks. And you offer this up as some sort of 'evidence'. :lamo

Thanks for the laugh.
Click to expand...

Check the credentials of the author before you deflect. You obviously have nothing and instead you are "lashing out" like Trump. It IS quite humorous, you are right.
 
JC Callender said:
Ok, well I'm not ready to accuse Trump of sexual assault based on what's out there, esp. knowing what I know about the Democrats and the Clinton machine. With that said, I still feel like his policies will be better than Hillary's, which at this point is ultimately what counts most when voting for president. Obama is a somewhat classy guy with a good image and a basically spotless past concerning treatment of women (which I respect). Is he a great president?
Click to expand...


I don't know about "great" but he is surely one of the best in our lifetime....according to the polls as well as myself. It is a shame the "out liers" drive the rhetoric on this board.
53% of Americans approve of Obama, more than any President but Bill Clinton and Eisenhower at this point in their term. Does that answer your question?

How Obama’s Rising Approval Ratings Compare With Recent Presidents’ | FiveThirtyEight
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Check the credentials of the author before you deflect. You obviously have nothing and instead you are "lashing out" like Trump. It IS quite humorous, you are right.
Click to expand...

Hardly. When an 'intent' loop hole is created just for Hillary, as others who have done far less are prosecuted and imprisoned with the same statues, it's obvious that the fix is in for her.

What ever happened to equal application of the law? Or that all are equal before the law?

No, it's pretty clear the fix was in for her.
 
JC Callender said:
Ok, well I'm not ready to accuse Trump of sexual assault based on what's out there, esp. knowing what I know about the Democrats and the Clinton machine. With that said, I still feel like his policies will be better than Hillary's, which at this point is ultimately what counts most when voting for president. Obama is a somewhat classy guy with a good image and a basically spotless past concerning treatment of women (which I respect). Is he a great president?
Click to expand...

Stop bitching about Hilary's ride...

pwOmQev.jpg
 
iguanaman said:
I don't know about "great" but he is surely one of the best in our lifetime....according to the polls as well as myself. It is a shame the "out liers" drive the rhetoric on this board.
53% of Americans approve of Obama, more than any President but Bill Clinton and Eisenhower at this point in their term. Does that answer your question?

How Obama’s Rising Approval Ratings Compare With Recent Presidents’ | FiveThirtyEight
Click to expand...

Reagan was 63% in December of 1988. And no, approval ratings don't mean everything. We have ISIS, a sh!tty, massive gov't healthcare program, race relations have gotten worse, and now it seems we're at odds with Russia. And don't give me the economy, it couldn't go anywhere but up when he took office and infused over $800 billion in stimulus for shovel ready jobs with barely a change in infrastructure.
 
eohrnberger said:
Hardly. When an 'intent' loop hole is created just for Hillary, as others who have done far less are prosecuted and imprisoned with the same statues, it's obvious that the fix is in for her.

What ever happened to equal application of the law? Or that all are equal before the law?

No, it's pretty clear the fix was in for her.
Click to expand...

If there was a fix it was because of her power as SOS, power that all SOS receive so I will ask you again...Do you think all SOS should be stripped of the power to classify and declassify or just Hillary?
 
JC Callender said:
Reagan was 63% in December of 1988. And no, approval ratings don't mean everything. We have ISIS, a sh!tty, massive gov't healthcare program, race relations have gotten worse, and now it seems we're at odds with Russia. And don't give me the economy, it couldn't go anywhere but up when he took office and infused over $800 billion in stimulus for shovel ready jobs with barely a change in infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Approval ratings are EVERYTHING unless you have a authoritarian state. But by any measure Obama has done a good job given the mess he was handed. I don't care if you agree because your reasons are clueless. $300 Billion of that 800 were tax cuts and we have been "at odds" with Russia forever, they are a totalitarian State and they hate us, and have 1000's of nukes pointed at us, duh. And that is just 2 of your false memes.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
If there was a fix it was because of her power as SOS, power that all SOS receive so I will ask you again...Do you think all SOS should be stripped of the power to classify and declassify or just Hillary?
Click to expand...

What are you implicating? That she declassified all the previously classified materials before she sent them, so that she'd be in the clear?

The SoS has the power and authority to declassify materials originated and classified by other departments of government, from where she received the classified materials?

In my view, all classified government materials should never leave a secured .gov network or a secured .gov computing device until after they've be declassified. This only makes sense.
 
JC Callender said:
How do you know there's just as much from Trump? Clinton was caught and impeached. Either way, they're both jerks. What ultimately matters more though in a presidency is what they'll do for our country. I don't like Trump, but I do think he'll be better than Hillary.
Click to expand...
:shrug: I don't think either will be all that much better, and character still matters to me.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
Oh look. How completely astonishing. It turns out there's a growing list of women coming forward to say that Trump did, in fact, treat them pretty much the way he claimed on tape.

Gosh. It's almost as if, when Cooper asked Trump whether he had actually groped anyone, it was a set-up because he knew that there were stories out there of it happening.



Gee Wiz. What a coincidence all these surprises are coming out in October, right? Gosh. It's almost as if the media, having boosted Trump up, is now going to make great ratings tearing him to shreds, resulting in Hillary Clinton winning the election.




Gosh. If only someone had predicted this would happen. You know. Repeatedly. For Months.




Apparently he also has a habit of walking in on underage teenagers at his pagaents hoping to catch them naked. Heckuva job, Trump voters.
Click to expand...
I believe that the vetting process has now taken it's course and it should be absolutely clear to everyone just exactly who this man is and what his moral fabric consists of. By any reasonable standards he is unfit to be President of the United States. I say that without hesitation and knowing full well that the consequences of such a conclusion leave no other alternative than to willingly hand Hillary Clinton the keys to the White House.

Through all of this I can't help but wonder... have those who actually SUPPORT Hillary ever really considered what HER moral fabric consists of? God help us...
 
iguanaman said:
If there was a fix it was because of her power as SOS, power that all SOS receive so I will ask you again...Do you think all SOS should be stripped of the power to classify and declassify or just Hillary?
Click to expand...

SECSTATEs have Original Classification Authority (OCA) only over State-generated information. Secretary Clinton did not have, and Secretary Kerry does not have, authority to declassify information generated by the NGA, DIA, CIA, NSA, NRO, etc.

Which is why Clinton's emails and email chains including information that had been verified by the originating agencies to have contained information that was classified at the time that it was sent and received, including material that was classified at the TS//SCI//SAP level, is so very, particularly, damming.
 
cpwill said:
SECSTATEs have Original Classification Authority (OCA) only over State-generated information. Secretary Clinton did not have, and Secretary Kerry does not have, authority to declassify information generated by the NGA, DIA, CIA, NSA, NRO, etc.

Which is why Clinton's emails and email chains including information that had been verified by the originating agencies to have contained information that was classified at the time that it was sent and received, including material that was classified at the TS//SCI//SAP level, is so very, particularly, damming.
Click to expand...

None of the so-called classified emails were correctly marked as such and therefore Hillary is not responsible for mishandling them. Simply having a (C) is not the correct marking for a classified document and you should know that. Had she not been SOS she might have been punished by her superiors for some of her actions but that does not apply to a SOS.

Shouldn’t Clinton have known that some of information in her emails must have been classified?
If the ‎material she received was unmarked, the answer is most likely “no.” Some classified information, no matter how sensitive, may appear sensitive only to those aware of a larger context. A report that Iran had received a ton of apricots from Turkey might, for example, be classified as top secret not because there is anything sensitive about the apricot shipment but because if Iran knew we had this information, it would know we had found a way to penetrate a secret shipping network. Yet few but the report’s originator would have reason to think the information was classified. The government also has rules regarding classified information that strike many people as silly. Following the WikiLeaks and Snowden incidents, for example, references to documents containing top-secret information were the subject of television and press reports. But the fact that hundreds of millions of people around the world knew the once closely held information did not change its classification status, as I was reminded in a memo sent to DHS employees, which went on to tell its recipients that they should avoid exposure to news referencing these documents.
Click to expand...

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
None of the so-called classified emails were correctly marked as such
Click to expand...

:shrug: which is irrelevant. Classified information remains classified even after you strip out the portion markings, headers, etc. All that it means that this information wasn't marked is that it shows willful intent to place classified information on unclassified systems, and the person who put it there had to choose to put the information in there in a different format than they had received it - sans marks.

I had a guy who worked for me once put S//HCS//NF material onto a SIPR document, marked as such. He screwed up and thought that, because it was still Secret, it could go there (he was pretty new). That he maintained the original marking of the information was evidence in his favor in the subsequent investigation - had he tried to strip the HCS marking out, it would have meant that he was willfully spilling information.

Which is what the people who sent these emails did.


and therefore Hillary is not responsible for mishandling them. Simply have a (C) is not the correct marking for a classified document and you should know that.
Click to expand...

Actually I know (and have shown people many times in this forum) that a portion marking is a classification marking, and indicates that the information it is attached to is classified. That is not only very basic procedure, it is also the law. Hillary knew this, which is why she (lied, and) claimed in her interview with the FBI that she didn't know what (C) meant.

For someone who has handled classified information for any period of time, for someone who was an original classification authority to claim that they didn't know what (C) meant on a document is like a State Department of Motor Vehicles Head with a 30 year history of driving trying to argue that he shouldn't get a ticket for running an intersection, because he didn't know that Red Light means Stop. Not only did Hillary Clinton receive training on what that means, she signed a legally binding life-long contract with the United States Government stating that she did know what it means, and had that reinforced to her constantly throughout her use of classified information, from the Senate to the SECSTATE position.
 
iguanaman said:
None of the so-called classified emails were correctly marked as such and therefore Hillary is not responsible for mishandling them. Simply having a (C) is not the correct marking for a classified document and you should know that. Had she not been SOS she might have been punished by her superiors for some of her actions but that does not apply to a SOS.



Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis
Click to expand...

Yes, yes...we know.

Because she was Secretary of State, she gets to pick and choose which government regulations to comply with and which to ignore.

Just like Obama, as President, can pick and choose which laws and constitutional mandates to comply with. :roll:
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: which is irrelevant. Classified information remains classified even after you strip out the portion markings, headers, etc. All that it means that this information wasn't marked is that it shows willful intent to place classified information on unclassified systems, and the person who put it there had to choose to put the information in there in a different format than they had received it - sans marks.

I had a guy who worked for me once put S//HCS//NF material onto a SIPR document, marked as such. He screwed up and thought that, because it was still Secret, it could go there (he was pretty new). That he maintained the original marking of the information was evidence in his favor in the subsequent investigation - had he tried to strip the HCS marking out, it would have meant that he was willfully spilling information.

Which is what the people who sent these emails did.




Actually I know (and have shown people many times in this forum) that a portion marking is a classification marking, and indicates that the information it is attached to is classified. That is not only very basic procedure, it is also the law. Hillary knew this, which is why she (lied, and) claimed in her interview with the FBI that she didn't know what (C) meant.

For someone who has handled classified information for any period of time, for someone who was an original classification authority to claim that they didn't know what (C) meant on a document is like a State Department of Motor Vehicles Head with a 30 year history of driving trying to argue that he shouldn't get a ticket for running an intersection, because he didn't know that Red Light means Stop. Not only did Hillary Clinton receive training on what that means, she signed a legally binding life-long contract with the United States Government stating that she did know what it means, and had that reinforced to her constantly throughout her use of classified information, from the Senate to the SECSTATE position.
Click to expand...

Of the 3 emails marked with the (C), 2 of them have been found and the State Dept. said the were erroneously marked that way. So that leave only 1 (C) that has significance. Are you saying Hillary should be indicted for missing that one single (C)? There is nothing else even remotely illegal in her actions as SOS.

Mr. Comey added another detail that has become a matter of dispute with the State Department. He said that three emails included “portion marking,” in which certain paragraphs of a document are marked with notations indicating that the material is classified. In his statement on Tuesday he said there was “a very small” number.

A search of the emails released by the State Department turned up two of those, both memos from one of Mrs. Clinton’s aides, Monica R. Hanley, preparing her for telephonecalls with world leaders. The State Department on Wednesday argued that those markings were, in fact, included by mistake.
Click to expand...

Emails Were Confidential, With a ?C? - The New York Times
 
iguanaman said:
Of the 3 emails marked with the (C), 2 of them have been found and the State Dept. said the were erroneously marked that way
Click to expand...

:) Which is also irrelevant. Unless you are the originator of that information, you don't have the authority to make that determination. Which Hillary knows, which is why she (lied, and) told the FBI she didn't know what a classification marking was.

Oh, and I can't help but notice that you chose to completely ignore:

Classified information remains classified even after you strip out the portion markings, headers, etc. All that it means that this information wasn't marked is that it shows willful intent to place classified information on unclassified systems, and the person who put it there had to choose to put the information in there in a different format than they had received it - sans marks.

...For someone who has handled classified information for any period of time, for someone who was an original classification authority to claim that they didn't know what (C) meant on a document is like a State Department of Motor Vehicles Head with a 30 year history of driving trying to argue that he shouldn't get a ticket for running an intersection, because he didn't know that Red Light means Stop. Not only did Hillary Clinton receive training on what that means, she signed a legally binding life-long contract with the United States Government stating that she did know what it means, and had that reinforced to her constantly throughout her use of classified information, from the Senate to the SECSTATE position.​


You tell us, Iguana. Is Clinton a liar and a felon? Or is she just utterly incompetent and unfit to the most basic of tasks of government?
 
cpwill said:
:) Which is also irrelevant. Unless you are the originator of that information, you don't have the authority to make that determination. Which Hillary knows, which is why she (lied, and) told the FBI she didn't know what a classification marking was.

Oh, and I can't help but notice that you chose to completely ignore:

Classified information remains classified even after you strip out the portion markings, headers, etc. All that it means that this information wasn't marked is that it shows willful intent to place classified information on unclassified systems, and the person who put it there had to choose to put the information in there in a different format than they had received it - sans marks.

...For someone who has handled classified information for any period of time, for someone who was an original classification authority to claim that they didn't know what (C) meant on a document is like a State Department of Motor Vehicles Head with a 30 year history of driving trying to argue that he shouldn't get a ticket for running an intersection, because he didn't know that Red Light means Stop. Not only did Hillary Clinton receive training on what that means, she signed a legally binding life-long contract with the United States Government stating that she did know what it means, and had that reinforced to her constantly throughout her use of classified information, from the Senate to the SECSTATE position.​


You tell us, Iguana. Is Clinton a liar and a felon? Or is she just utterly incompetent and unfit to the most basic of tasks of government?
Click to expand...

She certainly did have the authority to reclassify State Dept. documents so 2 of the 3 are not applicable.
So she missed one (c) embedded in one of 1000's of emails and that makes her incompetent and/or a felon. Hardly.....The FBI made a good decision. Unless you her accusing her of espionage, her status as SOS made her immune from such trivial mistakes.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
She certainly did have the authority to reclassify State Dept. documents so 2 of the 3 are not applicable.
So she missed one (c) embedded in one of 1000's of emails and that makes her incompetent and/or a felon. Hardly.....The FBI made a good decision. Unless you her accusing her of espionage, her status as SOS made her immune from such trivial mistakes.
Click to expand...

No, she sent, received, and stored hundreds of classified documents on an unsecured server, in violation of federal law. Comey made a political decision, so her status as SecState and the next POTUS protects her from the law being applied. Her status as an OCA, does not, however, give her the authority or immunity from transmitting classified information over which she had no OCA authority over unsecured servers and lines. That she did so with some of our nations' most closely-guarded secrets is only more damming.
 
cpwill said:
No, she sent, received, and stored hundreds of classified documents on an unsecured server, in violation of federal law. Comey made a political decision, so her status as SecState and the next POTUS protects her from the law being applied. Her status as an OCA, does not, however, give her the authority or immunity from transmitting classified information over which she had no OCA authority over unsecured servers and lines. That she did so with some of our nations' most closely-guarded secrets is only more damming.
Click to expand...

Since the law does not apply to documents classified after the fact or not marked classified, there is only 1 incorrectly marked document that is questionable and that is why the FBI found her not subject to prosecution under current law. That is the end of this story.
What "closely guarded secret" did Hillary leak? That is nothing but conjecture on your part. There is no evidence that her server was even hacked.
.
 
cpwill said:
No, she sent, received, and stored hundreds of classified documents on an unsecured server, in violation of federal law.
Click to expand...

That's a lie.

cpwill said:
Comey made a political decision,
Click to expand...

Speculation.

cpwill said:
so her status as SecState and the next POTUS protects her from the law being applied. Her status as an OCA, does not, however, give her the authority or immunity from transmitting classified information over which she had no OCA authority over unsecured servers and lines. That she did so with some of our nations' most closely-guarded secrets is only more damming.
Click to expand...

Another undemonstrated "most closely-guarded secrets" lie.

Why can't republicans debate this with honesty ? Oh, well maybe it's because the fact is that "no reasonable prosecutor" would take Hillary to court for what she did.
 
iguanaman said:
Since the law does not apply to documents classified after the fact
Click to expand...

That information and, subsequently, those documents, were classified at the time that they were sent. :) You are confusing "properly marked" with "is classified".

What "closely guarded secret" did Hillary leak?
Click to expand...

TS//SCI//SAP material, including HCS-O.

That is nothing but conjecture on your part.
Click to expand...

At various points in my career, I have been the primary intelligence briefer to 6 separate General Officers. I have handed endless thousands of classified documents, directed the intelligence cycle, and pursued targets ranging from individual terrorists to nation-state programs of mass destruction.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. I've been the guy responsible for drawing up the plans to bomb other countries, and I've never even seen some of the stuff that Hillary Clinton put on her regular ole unguarded email server. That's how tightly held it was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom