Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 164
  1. #81
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Why are you focusing on the side-issue here? This isn't about Monica or the others. It is about Hillary blaming and shaming those who were subordinates in the relationship. It is about perpetuating the types of myths which you'd think a strong advocate for women like Hillary would avoid at all costs. However, I am positing that she isn't really much of a warrior for anything other than attaining her own ambitions. She is not the archetype of an ethical human being. She is the archetype of a megalomaniac.
    Speculation, just because they were subordinates doesn't mean they were subordinate in the relationship, that they were not the aggressors, or that any type of harassment actually took place. You're assumptions about women are naive.

    ---------- Post added at 11:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:33 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    When was the last time you wiped clean all your emails? Not just deleted them from your inbox, but wiped them clean? Most people don't do this. Those that do are probably hiding something. I can't prove it, but it just sounds shady as all hell. It certainly isn't the type of behavior which would make me think she is highly ethical as you implied.
    The last job I left. I erased a good amount of things off of the server also.

    ---------- Post added at 11:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    She was not forbidden from using her own server (unless she was sending classified material). However, there was no approval for her to wipe her server clean. She did this without asking for approval or recommendation. There weren't any guidelines because, let's face it, she was covering new ground here.
    Sounds like a "maker" to me.

    ---------- Post added at 11:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post

    So, she leaves her job. Has her own political team decide which emails are work related. Then without any further review, has the server wiped clean. Not just of work email, but supposedly personal emails as well.... Really? You're not at all suspicious here? This sounds totally above board to you?

    Wouldn't the ethical behavior have been to have her team presort through the emails they believed were work related. Then, have an independent team advise her on the remaining emails. Then, AFTER the emails were independently reviewed, she could wipe her server clean. That would have been the ethical way to have gone about things.
    Your after-the-fact ethical sanctimony doesn't change the facts that she complied, fully, and that she followed the rules. That she may have, possibly, gotten away with something that you have no proof of - something that you can't even articulate - supports that there's no there there.

    ---------- Post added at 11:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    No. I already explained why her explanation was not reasonable. She claimed she needed a personal server so she didn't need multiple devices. However, as I explained, a single device has been able to handle multiple email servers for over a decade now. I had a Blackberry which did this very well back when Bush was still President. So, I don't believe her story. In fact, she was often seen with multiple devices, one being her phone and one being her tablet. So, her story simply does not ring true.
    They clarified that she didn't want to have multiple phones.

    ---------- Post added at 11:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post

    So, we KNOW she lied about why she needed a personal server for work. We KNOW she was secretive about having a personal server for work. We KNOW she was underhanded in releasing her work emails after leaving her post. None of that is ethical behavior personified.
    You've offered no support of any of that besides your own personal bias and speculation. I thought this was about my supporting Hillary blindly, instead it shows how you will believe anything about her despite the lack of any evidence.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  2. #82
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Speculation, just because they were subordinates doesn't mean they were subordinate in the relationship, that they were not the aggressors, or that any type of harassment actually took place. You're assumptions about women are naive.
    So, you are now claiming that the U.S. President was being preyed upon interns and secretaries. It should be noted, he was not just charged with adultery, but sexual harassment. While he technically beat the Paula Jones case in court, he still paid her out $850,000. Just curious. Was Hillary defending women then? Not so much. She looked the other way. Blamed the media and the women. There is nothing ethical about how she handled herself.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    The last job I left. I erased a good amount of things off of the server also.
    Notice you said, "a good amount," rather than the entire server. And unless you were their IT guy, hard to believe the IT department would allow you access to their server(s). Furthermore, if you worked for a decent sized company, they would have backed up the server before you took anything off of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Sounds like a "maker" to me.
    So you actually want all politicians to do this? Is this the general gist of your statement? All politicians should keep track of their own emails, release those they choose, and then wipe out their servers when done? See my quotes about how her actions effected FOIA statutes below. Essentially, you are proposing that all government work should be hidden from the public.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Your after-the-fact ethical sanctimony doesn't change the facts that she complied, fully, and that she followed the rules. That she may have, possibly, gotten away with something that you have no proof of - something that you can't even articulate - supports that there's no there there.
    Now you are going overboard. It is unclear whether she fully complied with all the rules.

    Per Politifact:
    "We interviewed several experts on government transparency and records preservation. While Clinton might be able to put together a case that she "complied" with the rules, experts said her actions are nevertheless hard to defend."

    More to the point from the same source:
    "While Clinton may have technical arguments for why she complied with each of these and the other rules that have been discussed in the news, the argument that Clinton complied with the letter and spirit of the law is unsustainable," said Douglas Cox, a law professor at City University of New York who studies records preservation.

    "Anyone at NARA would have said you can’t use a personal email account for all of your official business," said Metcalfe, who held his position in part during former President Bill Clinton’s administration.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...low-all-rules/

    Your claim is that she did nothing wrong. More importantly, you are touting her ethical. The experts all agree that she, at a minimum, broke the spirit of the rules. Had she been open about her server use, she would have been told she was not in compliance. Of course, since no one knew, no one was able to tell her. This is, seemingly, the very definition of unethical.



    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    They clarified that she didn't want to have multiple phones.
    And I already stated that this was b.s. since it was possible to receive emails from different servers on a single phone long before she became Secretary of State. She solved a problem which didn't exist. You have failed to even come close to addressing this argument, each time offering a red herring, side-stepping the premise from which the conclusion follows.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    You've offered no support of any of that besides your own personal bias and speculation. I thought this was about my supporting Hillary blindly, instead it shows how you will believe anything about her despite the lack of any evidence.
    I've offered plenty of support, but you have held her to such a high standard, that anything short of video tape evidence where she admits to high crimes, you excuse her.

    I am admittedly a conservative, but no one on here who has read my posts would call me a Republican cheer leader. Probably not even a Republican supporter. If I vote for a Republican, it is begrudgingly because I view all politicians as scum. So, what I cannot figure out, what puzzles me more than Christians, is how some people take a religious-like following to politicians. Like you and Hillary. I'd understand if you said, yeah, she is highly flawed, but you find her easier to stomach than [insert republican here]. I'd get that argument. I'd get it if you said you're voting for her because everyone else has no shot and she's the least weakest link in a very weak chain. However, for you to defend each and every transgression she makes... that is just cult-like and weird. Just one last thing to leave with you. If she were Nixon, or better yet, if Richard Nixon had Clinton's views, would you have voted for him? Knowing what sort of flawed person he was, albeit, he was a fairly effective President at times, would you have voted for someone with his ethical short-comings?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  3. #83
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, you are now claiming that the U.S. President was being preyed upon interns and secretaries. It should be noted, he was not just charged with adultery, but sexual harassment. While he technically beat the Paula Jones case in court, he still paid her out $850,000. Just curious. Was Hillary defending women then? Not so much. She looked the other way. Blamed the media and the women. There is nothing ethical about how she handled herself.
    Paula Jones got nothing, her lawyers took it all, and there was no admittance of guilt. I don't know what ethical standards you're applying because you've never mentioned them, but I'll say that defending ones family from attack and harm seems ethical. How about standing up to a bully or a shake-down artist? I'd argue that shows strength of character.

    ---------- Post added at 06:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:00 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Furthermore, if you worked for a decent sized company, they would have backed up the server before you took anything off of it.
    That's their problem, isn't it? Is it Hillary's fault that the rules weren't evolved? Nope.

    ---------- Post added at 06:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Notice you said, "a good amount," rather than the entire server. And unless you were their IT guy, hard to believe the IT department would allow you access to their server(s).
    Well, I erased all that was mine to erase. Since everything on Hillary's server was hers...same thing.

    Again, as above, that it wasn't backed up is of no concern to me and has no relevance.

    ---------- Post added at 06:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:04 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So you actually want all politicians to do this? Is this the general gist of your statement? All politicians should keep track of their own emails, release those they choose, and then wipe out their servers when done? See my quotes about how her actions effected FOIA statutes below. Essentially, you are proposing that all government work should be hidden from the public.

    No, they can change the rules. I believe they've already done this.

    ---------- Post added at 06:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Had she been open about her server use, she would have been told she was not in compliance. Of course, since no one knew, no one was able to tell her.
    Well boo-hoo, maybe if someone had told her she would have known and not used the server. Sounds like someone is in CYA mode.

    ---------- Post added at 06:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post

    Your claim is that she did nothing wrong. More importantly, you are touting her ethical. The experts all agree that she, at a minimum, broke the spirit of the rules. Had she been open about her server use, she would have been told she was not in compliance. Of course, since no one knew, no one was able to tell her. This is, seemingly, the very definition of unethical.
    I'm sure that's true. I have many multiple gmail accounts. It's kind of a pain to log in and out of them to check them. Perhaps, if I had nothing to hide and my personal and professional email were relatively vanilla, I might just use one.

    Perfectly reasonable.

    ---------- Post added at 06:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If she were Nixon, or better yet, if Richard Nixon had Clinton's views, would you have voted for him? Knowing what sort of flawed person he was, albeit, he was a fairly effective President at times, would you have voted for someone with his ethical short-comings?
    Which flaws are you talking about and would I have known about them at the time ('68 and '72)?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  4. #84
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Paula Jones got nothing, her lawyers took it all, and there was no admittance of guilt. I don't know what ethical standards you're applying because you've never mentioned them, but I'll say that defending ones family from attack and harm seems ethical. How about standing up to a bully or a shake-down artist? I'd argue that shows strength of character.[COLOR=Silver]
    Did Clinton award Jones the money or not? What happened to the money after that is not relevant to the argum

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    That's their problem, isn't it? Is it Hillary's fault that the rules weren't evolved? Nope.
    This is your argument to demonstrate how ethical Hillary is? She skirted breaking the rules by hiding the fact she was breaking the rules?


    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Well, I erased all that was mine to erase. Since everything on Hillary's server was hers...same thing.

    Again, as above, that it wasn't backed up is of no concern to me and has no relevance.[COLOR=Silver]
    Typically, an employee wouldn't have server access of the company. I mean, deleting all the emails off of your computer is NOT the same as deleting them off the server. And if your company kept backups, then it wouldn't matter. In addition, any email you send via your employer's computer belongs to the company, not to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    No, they can change the rules. I believe they've already done this.
    The rules already existed. No one knew she was skirting the rules. So, it was tough to hold her accountable at the time. Had a recipient's email not been hacked, we may still not have known. I already quoted the experts which made it quite clear that her actions broke the spirit and intention of the rules. Her actions were called, possibly technically within the rules, but hard to defend. The bottom line is that she purposefully and willfully made it impossible to track her actions as a public official.

    So, essentially, your argument is that Hillary is ethical because she didn't get caught. You are ok with her having a secret email account and deleting emails without independent review?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Well boo-hoo, maybe if someone had told her she would have known and not used the server. Sounds like someone is in CYA mode.
    You mean if someone would have told them... like Hillary did back in 2011?
    "State Department cable that shows Secretary of State Clinton’s office told employees not to use personal email for security reasons, "
    http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/05/do...told-employees

    So, apparently her office knew the rules. Hillary simply believed the rules didn't apply to her.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I'm sure that's true. I have many multiple gmail accounts. It's kind of a pain to log in and out of them to check them. Perhaps, if I had nothing to hide and my personal and professional email were relatively vanilla, I might just use one.
    Why would you have to log into each one. I have one device. I have a work email. I have three personal email accounts. Plus I have a personal account I use just to collect spam (the email i use to sign up for offers and the like). Never have to log in. Log out. My phone just receives the emails and notifies me as they occur. So, no, her excuse isn't even close to reasonable. Oh, and in case you are wondering, I have a Microsoft Exchange account, gmail accounts and yahoo accounts. So, it is not like I am using some special email service for this either. Plain and simple, she's lying. Either that or she's incredibly stupid. I'll accept either answer.

    I asked you the question about Nixon. I gave you the parameters. Why won't you answer this simple question.

    Knowing what sort of flawed person he was, albeit, he was a fairly effective President at times, would you have voted for someone with his ethical short-comings?
    Or to put this all more succinctly
    "Wonderlich also found it ethically challenged, if not legally, for Clinton and her team to have been the filter for her emails:

    "The final arbiter of what's public or what's turned over to Congress shouldn't be private staff working for Hillary Clinton. It should be State Department employees who are bound by duty to the public interest." "
    http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpo...ls-and-the-law

    On whether Clinton knew what she was doing:
    "That means "she managed successfully to insulate her official emails, categorically, from the FOIA, both during her tenure at State and long after her departure from it — perhaps forever." He called that "a blatant circumvention of the FOIA by someone who unquestionably knows better." "
    http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpo...ls-and-the-law

    So, your claims that she didn't know or that she was acting ethically have been denounced by experts on the subject. So far you rebuttal is denial and moral equivalency because you once deleted some emails at work too. Look, this has been laugh out loud funny, but I think we are done. You are just going to come back with some personal opinion that despite all this, Hillary is awesome and totally ethical. I guess, for you, any other answer is an admission that you will vote based on identity and substance has absolutely no bearing on your choice. You are that Republican who voted for Nixon in 1968 because he promised to get us out of Vietnam... and nothing else mattered. What I wonder is whether there will be enough people like you such that she can win a general election. You are the exact person she is counting upon. You will eat up her identity politics and to hell with the rest. You're even willing to put aside the fact that she is the most hawkish of the Democratic candidates and even more so than some GOP candidates. Good luck man.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  5. #85
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Did Clinton award Jones the money or not? What happened to the money after that is not relevant to the argum
    The case was dismissed. The agreement was for him to pay in order to stop the appeal. She chose money over justice, how credible is that? or should I say "ethical"?

    ---------- Post added at 04:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:50 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    This is your argument to demonstrate how ethical Hillary is? She skirted breaking the rules by hiding the fact she was breaking the rules?
    She didn't skirt the rules, there was nothing to break.

    ---------- Post added at 04:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:50 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post

    I asked you the question about Nixon. I gave you the parameters. Why won't you answer this simple question.

    You're asking me if I would have voted for Nixon in '68 knowing things he did in after 1970. That's a stupid question.

    Would I have followed Hitler knowing I was going to freeze to death on the Eastern Front?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  6. #86
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    The case was dismissed. The agreement was for him to pay in order to stop the appeal. She chose money over justice, how credible is that? or should I say "ethical"?

    ---------- Post added at 04:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:50 AM ----------



    She didn't skirt the rules, there was nothing to break.

    ---------- Post added at 04:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:50 AM ----------




    You're asking me if I would have voted for Nixon in '68 knowing things he did in after 1970. That's a stupid question.

    Would I have followed Hitler knowing I was going to freeze to death on the Eastern Front?
    Too funny. Apparently, you are blaming the victim, Paula Jones. Niiiiiice. Same thing Hillary did. This war on women Hillary speaks of... you guys crack me up.

    I notice you completely disregard the experts and simply refer to your own opinions. I have given my argument, supported it and your response is, "uh-uh".

    Obviously, you cannot answer the Nixon question as you keep trying to find reasons not to answer. I am guessing you are sensing this is too close to home for you.

    Nixon = Hillary

    The only question is whether identity politics = Vietnam. That is my take on all this. Two fundamentally flawed human beings. Paranoid. Ethically challenged. Driven and ambitious beyond measure. So, as you punch your ticket for the Hill, just imagine her as she holds up two hands and four fingers and says with shaking jowls, "I ammm not a crook!"
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  7. #87
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Why is being "driven and ambitious beyond measure" bad?

    Nixon wasn't a crook, he was a criminal which is why he was pardoned.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  8. #88
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Why is being "driven and ambitious beyond measure" bad?

    Nixon wasn't a crook, he was a criminal which is why he was pardoned.
    Wow, you managed to pare down his points you felt like responding to until it's come to this little two sentence response. Well what about all of these, the strongest points?

    Too funny. Apparently, you are blaming the victim, Paula Jones. Niiiiiice. Same thing Hillary did. This war on women Hillary speaks of... you guys crack me up.

    I notice you completely disregard the experts and simply refer to your own opinions. I have given my argument, supported it and your response is, "uh-uh".
    Why would you have to log into each one. I have one device. I have a work email. I have three personal email accounts. Plus I have a personal account I use just to collect spam (the email i use to sign up for offers and the like). Never have to log in. Log out. My phone just receives the emails and notifies me as they occur. So, no, her excuse isn't even close to reasonable. Oh, and in case you are wondering, I have a Microsoft Exchange account, gmail accounts and yahoo accounts. So, it is not like I am using some special email service for this either. Plain and simple, she's lying. Either that or she's incredibly stupid. I'll accept either answer.

    I asked you the question about Nixon. I gave you the parameters. Why won't you answer this simple question.
    You mean if someone would have told them... like Hillary did back in 2011?
    "State Department cable that shows Secretary of State Clinton’s office told employees not to use personal email for security reasons, "
    http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/05/do...told-employees

    So, apparently her office knew the rules. Hillary simply believed the rules didn't apply to her.
    I already quoted the experts which made it quite clear that her actions broke the spirit and intention of the rules. Her actions were called, possibly technically within the rules, but hard to defend. The bottom line is that she purposefully and willfully made it impossible to track her actions as a public official.
    I've offered plenty of support, but you have held her to such a high standard, that anything short of video tape evidence where she admits to high crimes, you excuse her.
    And the list goes on and on. All kinds of points that you neglected to answer, yet he apparently responded to most if not all of yours. It should be obnoxiously obvious at this juncture, who is really being intellectually dishonest here. The segments I've emphasized in bold are enough on their own to make your arguments so far appear laughable, so are you at least going to respond to them if they really don't trash your arguments after all?
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  9. #89
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Paula Jones - gave up her chance at justice for a payout. The whole sexual harassment thing wasn't so big a deal I gather.

    Nixon, I was asked whether I would vote for him in '68 knowing what he was going to do in '70 and beyond. That's a stupid question. If I could answer it I'd be doing something better like winning the lottery everyday.

    "So, it is not like I am using some special email service for this either." But she was, her single email address on the private server.

    "Either that or she's incredibly stupid." Possible, or not IT knowledgeable, all more reasonable and believable than some new grand conspiracy.

    "So, apparently her office knew the rules. Hillary simply believed the rules didn't apply to her." Cite me the rule she broke.


    All quotes from post 88
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  10. #90
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Paula Jones - gave up her chance at justice for a payout. The whole sexual harassment thing wasn't so big a deal I gather.

    Nixon, I was asked whether I would vote for him in '68 knowing what he was going to do in '70 and beyond. That's a stupid question. If I could answer it I'd be doing something better like winning the lottery everyday.

    "So, it is not like I am using some special email service for this either." But she was, her single email address on the private server.

    "Either that or she's incredibly stupid." Possible, or not IT knowledgeable, all more reasonable and believable than some new grand conspiracy.

    "So, apparently her office knew the rules. Hillary simply believed the rules didn't apply to her." Cite me the rule she broke.


    All quotes from post 88
    1. You cannot answer what is a really simple hypothetical question. One that attempts to determine how much you really care about ethics in your politicians. We both know why you will not answer.
    2. Hillary didn't create her own server. And had she asked her IT friend/staffer if she could consolidate her devices, he'd have told her, no problem.... without creating an email server for her. So, again, she claims to have solved a problem which never existed.
    3. I have explained the rules she broke. She broke department rules by using a private server and not complying fully with FOIA. The State Dept. head of records explains this and I quoted him. She was out of compliance with the rules and it was not discovered until she left office. Why? Because she never told anyone she was using a private server for all department business.

    The exact quote
    "That means "she managed successfully to insulate her official emails, categorically, from the FOIA, both during her tenure at State and long after her departure from it — perhaps forever." He called that "a blatant circumvention of the FOIA by someone who unquestionably knows better." "


    She blatantly circumvented FOIA rules. Period. Please stop claiming she didn't break the rules unless you can support your claim with something other than pure denial. I have provided an argument and sourced support from a person who is an authority on this manner. Either provide a reasoned rebuttal or concede she has broken the rules.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  11. #91
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    "That means "she managed successfully to insulate her official emails, categorically, from the FOIA, both during her tenure at State and long after her departure from it — perhaps forever." He called that "a blatant circumvention of the FOIA by someone who unquestionably knows better."

    But was it "probably ... a violation of law," as Grassley charged?

    The Justice Department weighed in, calling it "sheer speculation" that "Clinton withheld any work-related emails from those provided to the Department of State." What's more, Justice wrote, "FOIA creates no obligation for an agency to search for and produce records that it does not possess and control."

    In fact, the department refers to a past fight over former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's notes, as Josh Gerstein points out. Notes and tapes of Kissinger's conversations were sent to the Library of Congress — rather than leaving them to the State Department — restricting their public access. FOIA requests were denied by the State Department because they were under the aegis of the Library of Congress. Kissinger declined to turn the documents over to archivists' requests.

    What's more, the Supreme Court held that the Kissinger documents did not have to be turned over under FOIA — even though they were notes taken while Kissinger was at State — because State did not have possession of them."

    ""A State Department spokeswoman says Hillary Clinton did not break any rules by relying solely on her personal email account. Federal law allows government officials to use personal email so long as relevant documents are preserved for history."
    The law was amended in late 2014 to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days. But that was after Clinton left office."

    http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpo...ls-and-the-law


    Ok, so now it's a hypothetical question, good. So, in 1968 would I have voted for Nixon knowing he was going to be engaged in criminal behavior after 1970. No.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  12. #92
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Apparently, I had two posts somehow that never made it. My reply to this was one of them... so I'll try to resume.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    "That means "she managed successfully to insulate her official emails, categorically, from the FOIA, both during her tenure at State and long after her departure from it — perhaps forever." He called that "a blatant circumvention of the FOIA by someone who unquestionably knows better."

    But was it "probably ... a violation of law," as Grassley charged?
    I offered the premise that she broke department rules and dodged having to comply with FOIA to make the point that she is far from an ethical person. So, Grassley's accusation is nothing but an attempt to establish a straw man. Again, based on the experts I quoted, while it is uncertain whether any laws were broken, her actions were indefensible.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    The Justice Department weighed in, calling it "sheer speculation" that "Clinton withheld any work-related emails from those provided to the Department of State." What's more, Justice wrote, "FOIA creates no obligation for an agency to search for and produce records that it does not possess and control."

    In fact, the department refers to a past fight over former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's notes, as Josh Gerstein points out. Notes and tapes of Kissinger's conversations were sent to the Library of Congress — rather than leaving them to the State Department — restricting their public access. FOIA requests were denied by the State Department because they were under the aegis of the Library of Congress. Kissinger declined to turn the documents over to archivists' requests.
    You are conflating two different arguments made by the State Dept. and attempting to use that conflation in substitution for a logical rebuttal.
    1) It is speculation on whether Hillary has withheld work-related emails. It is speculation because she deleted her server before anyone could verify it. It is speculation because she kept her private server a secret from those whose job it is to verify that work-related documents are preserved. So, yes, all we can do now is speculate. However, there needn't be any speculation about the reasons. She broke department and FOIA rules (while in office) to get to this point.
    2) The second point made by the State Dept. is that once she stepped down, the State Dept. is no longer legally responsible for the records which are not in their possession. This has nothing to do with Hillary directly and everything to do about the State Depts. responsibility now that Hillary has left them lurching in the wind.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    ""A State Department spokeswoman says Hillary Clinton did not break any rules by relying solely on her personal email account. Federal law allows government officials to use personal email so long as relevant documents are preserved for history."
    The law was amended in late 2014 to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days. But that was after Clinton left office."

    http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpo...ls-and-the-law
    So long as relevant documents are preserved for history... Something which we will always have to speculate about since there is absolutely no evidence she turned over all the documents in her possession. She broke her own department's policy as described in a memo sent out from her own office. There is a difference between breaking the law and breaking policy. The quote you are offering here conflates the two. Did she break any laws? This is a gray area as I noted before. Did she break department rules. According to all the experts, yes.

    Have you finally conceded that she lied about needing a private server in the first place? There is a whole level of deceit and subterfuge which demonstrates her true character and which is why I cannot figure out how you hold up with such high esteem. We see this type of behavior from her throughout her public history and time and again she finds herself embroiled in these situations which raise doubts about her ethics. In this example, she is caught lying and, maybe even worse, hiding her business as a public servant from the public. Whether you want to believe she actually turned over all the relevant emails off of her server or not, there is no denying that she hid her use of a private server from the public for nearly her entire tenure while in office and kept its use unknown even to those whose job it was to ensure the records on that server were preserved. We only know about the server because of a computer hacker. How do you vote for someone that will consistently look you in the eye and lie?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Ok, so now it's a hypothetical question, good. So, in 1968 would I have voted for Nixon knowing he was going to be engaged in criminal behavior after 1970. No.
    Getting a straight answer from you is like pulling teeth. That was not what I asked.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  13. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  14. #93
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Getting a straight answer from you is like pulling teeth. That was not what I asked.
    Then try asking a straight question.

    ---------- Post added at 04:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:57 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I offered the premise that she broke department rules and dodged having to comply with FOIA to make the point that she is far from an ethical person. So, Grassley's accusation is nothing but an attempt to establish a straw man. Again, based on the experts I quoted, while it is uncertain whether any laws were broken, her actions were indefensible.
    Your premise was shown to be mistaken by me in Post 91.

    Your expert was Grassley. (in Post 84) Who else are you citing as an expert?

    ---------- Post added at 04:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Apparently, I had two posts somehow that never made it. My reply to this was one of them... so I'll try to resume.


    I offered the premise that she broke department rules and dodged having to comply with FOIA to make the point that she is far from an ethical person. So, Grassley's accusation is nothing but an attempt to establish a straw man. Again, based on the experts I quoted, while it is uncertain whether any laws were broken, her actions were indefensible.


    You are conflating two different arguments made by the State Dept. and attempting to use that conflation in substitution for a logical rebuttal.
    1) It is speculation on whether Hillary has withheld work-related emails. It is speculation because she deleted her server before anyone could verify it. It is speculation because she kept her private server a secret from those whose job it is to verify that work-related documents are preserved. So, yes, all we can do now is speculate. However, there needn't be any speculation about the reasons. She broke department and FOIA rules (while in office) to get to this point.
    That the rules did not match up with the FOIA's intent is none of Hillary's concern. She broke no rules.

    and all you have is speculation.

    I believe one of the explanations given for the existence of the server was that it was set up and left over from her campaign and she decided to use it or keep using it - (I forgot the source for this, I'll try to look it up later) - but let's, for now, say that was her stated reason for having the server...that's perfectly logical and reasonable.

    "I can keep using my exiting email address or go through the bother of switching" - an understandable choice to keep the same address even if for the just the bother memorizing a new address and/or updating contacts on the change - perfectly reasonable. Wherein do you see the ethical challenge?

    ---------- Post added at 05:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:30 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Have you finally conceded that she lied about needing a private server in the first place? There is a whole level of deceit and subterfuge which demonstrates her true character and which is why I cannot figure out how you hold up with such high esteem. We see this type of behavior from her throughout her public history and time and again she finds herself embroiled in these situations which raise doubts about her ethics.
    Again, we're back to where we began and I disagree. Standing up to bullying, irrational, baseless attacks amounting to nothing more than witch hunts during a fishing expedition displays great moral character.

    "They’re also issued BlackBerries because of the long-standing viewpoint of the federal government that the devices offer the best high-level security for email and instant messaging. When a staffer uses her state.gov email, she needs to use an approved government computer, which requires special passcodes and software, or she must tackle the cumbersome interface of her government-issued BlackBerry." http://www.slate.com/articles/techno...sages_let.html (emphasis mine)

    So would I "tackle the cumbersome interface of her government-issued BlackBerry" for my own personal emails or carry around my own device? I'd carry my own device = two devices.

    Further, if I were allowed to use my own personal email for business (thus eliminating "the cumbersome interface of her government-issued BlackBerry") would I? Yes = one device.

    This is a completely rational and believable series of choices.


    In the emails that were turned over:

    "The AP released four emails from Clinton that were unclassified by the U.S. Department of State. Among those emails were an exchange between Clinton and Huma Abedin, her longtime aide and confidant, that blended work and personal topics.

    On September 18, 2011, Abedin forwarded Clinton an AP story about a drone crash along the Afghan border. Inadvertently, Clinton responded with an email about decorations.

    "I like the idea of these," Clinton wrote. "How high are they? What would the bench be made of? And I'd prefer two shelves or attractive boxes/baskets/containers [sic] on one. What do you think?"

    Abedin responded asking, "Did u mean to send to me?"

    "No - sorry!," Clinton wrote back. "Also, pls let me know if you got a reply from my ipad. I'm not sure replies go thru."" http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/politi...-mail-devices/

    We see evidence of Clinton being overly precise in what she handed over and how little expertise she had in the IT area.

    Finally, you have no evidence - not only of a smoking gun - no evidence at all of any email of anything untoward or questionable in any way which, if not preserved by Hillary, could have been preserved by the recipients.

    Would an aide have deleted an email from the Secretary of State saying, "I'm going to let Ambassador Stevens die."? Doubt it.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  15. #94
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Then try asking a straight question.

    ---------- Post added at 04:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:57 AM ----------



    Your premise was shown to be mistaken by me in Post 91.

    Your expert was Grassley. (in Post 84) Who else are you citing as an expert?

    ---------- Post added at 04:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 AM ----------



    That the rules did not match up with the FOIA's intent is none of Hillary's concern. She broke no rules.

    and all you have is speculation.

    I believe one of the explanations given for the existence of the server was that it was set up and left over from her campaign and she decided to use it or keep using it - (I forgot the source for this, I'll try to look it up later) - but let's, for now, say that was her stated reason for having the server...that's perfectly logical and reasonable.

    "I can keep using my exiting email address or go through the bother of switching" - an understandable choice to keep the same address even if for the just the bother memorizing a new address and/or updating contacts on the change - perfectly reasonable. Wherein do you see the ethical challenge?

    ---------- Post added at 05:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:30 AM ----------



    Again, we're back to where we began and I disagree. Standing up to bullying, irrational, baseless attacks amounting to nothing more than witch hunts during a fishing expedition displays great moral character.

    "They’re also issued BlackBerries because of the long-standing viewpoint of the federal government that the devices offer the best high-level security for email and instant messaging. When a staffer uses her state.gov email, she needs to use an approved government computer, which requires special passcodes and software, or she must tackle the cumbersome interface of her government-issued BlackBerry." http://www.slate.com/articles/techno...sages_let.html (emphasis mine)

    So would I "tackle the cumbersome interface of her government-issued BlackBerry" for my own personal emails or carry around my own device? I'd carry my own device = two devices.

    Further, if I were allowed to use my own personal email for business (thus eliminating "the cumbersome interface of her government-issued BlackBerry") would I? Yes = one device.

    This is a completely rational and believable series of choices.


    In the emails that were turned over:

    "The AP released four emails from Clinton that were unclassified by the U.S. Department of State. Among those emails were an exchange between Clinton and Huma Abedin, her longtime aide and confidant, that blended work and personal topics.

    On September 18, 2011, Abedin forwarded Clinton an AP story about a drone crash along the Afghan border. Inadvertently, Clinton responded with an email about decorations.

    "I like the idea of these," Clinton wrote. "How high are they? What would the bench be made of? And I'd prefer two shelves or attractive boxes/baskets/containers [sic] on one. What do you think?"

    Abedin responded asking, "Did u mean to send to me?"

    "No - sorry!," Clinton wrote back. "Also, pls let me know if you got a reply from my ipad. I'm not sure replies go thru."" http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/politi...-mail-devices/

    We see evidence of Clinton being overly precise in what she handed over and how little expertise she had in the IT area.

    Finally, you have no evidence - not only of a smoking gun - no evidence at all of any email of anything untoward or questionable in any way which, if not preserved by Hillary, could have been preserved by the recipients.

    Would an aide have deleted an email from the Secretary of State saying, "I'm going to let Ambassador Stevens die."? Doubt it.
    I did not cite Grassley. So, how could you refute my premise when you didn't comprehend the argument in the first place? My sources were from a Politfact article based upon a comment made by Grassley. However, my argument was not based on anything he claimed. My premises were supported by experts quoted in the article.

    These experts, despite your protestation, describe Hillary's actions as both unethical and against department policy. Again, this is not to claim she explicitly broke the law (which is still a possible outcome of her actions). It is a claim that she broke the rules. If I broke my company's rules, I am not necessarily breaking the law. Even within a government job, breaking the rules does not always indicate a law was broken. However, and this should be more disconcerting to you, is that her behaviors were aimed at hiding/shielding her actions from the public. Again, and you have never refuted this point, the only reason the use of her personal server became known (to both the state department and to the general public) was because of some random computer hacker. She didn't seek guidance from the relevant agencies at the State Dept. concerning her use of a private server even though both disclosure and national security were at stake.

    Finally, and this is the most spurious of your rebuttals, the fact there is no smoking gun demonstrates nothing. It is not the issue. The fact is, and you have not offered any rebuttal here, is that she chose to delete her emails without any sort of independent oversight. Again, whether she broke the law is a side-issue. We are discussing ethics, not criminality. If I cheat on a test and don't get caught, would you consider my actions ethical? What if I make all the preparations to cheat, but you never actually catch me cheating? Am I acting ethically?

    It is funny, because all but the most partisan of people she her has a hack, untrustworthy.
    http://nypost.com/2015/04/23/majorit...stworthy-poll/
    "A majority of US voters — 54 percent — say Hillary Clinton is not honest or trustworthy according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday.

    Only 38 percent said they trust the Democratic frontrunner."

    This really is my point to begin with. I am struggling to figure out how a politician (any politician) whom the majority of Americans find untrustworthy can manage to win a national election. If we assume 100% of the 38% of Americans that find her trustworthy and 100% of Americans hiding in a closet (the 8% who polled as neither) will vote for Hillary then she needs to gain, at least 5% of the vote from people who think she is a liar in order to get her to 51%. One of twenty voters must say, yeah, she's a liar, but I am going to vote for her anyhow. And in reality, she probably needs much more than 1 in 20 of these voters. Perhaps, she'll need as many as 1 in 10. I am not saying it cannot be done. I am saying it is a really tough hill to climb and normally a politician would need something significant to overcome this sort of obstacle. Again, this is why I harken back to Nixon and Vietnam. He was not well-liked by the public but he won because he promised to get us out of Vietnam. Hillary is trying a different tactic. She is attempting to appear moderate and has focused on winning all the little minority battles. She is banking on winning via identity politics, but I just don't think that is enough. But, you go on and keep believing she is an honest politician....
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  16. #95
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    It is a claim that she broke the rules.
    It's a claim that's all. Pilgrims killed each other here in New England with claims of witchcraft. It was also "claimed" that she shot Vince Foster.

    ---------- Post added at 03:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post

    Finally, and this is the most spurious of your rebuttals, the fact there is no smoking gun demonstrates nothing. It is not the issue. The fact is, and you have not offered any rebuttal here, is that she chose to delete her emails without any sort of independent oversight.

    Which was not required. Your claim is that she made some kind of lie of omission, when again, you have no evidence of any lie.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  17. #96
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    It's a claim that's all. Pilgrims killed each other here in New England with claims of witchcraft. It was also "claimed" that she shot Vince Foster.
    A claim by an expert on the matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Which was not required. Your claim is that she made some kind of lie of omission, when again, you have no evidence of any lie.
    What is required has nothing to do with whether it was ethical. You are claiming she acted ethically. Hiding your behavior and then deleting the evidence isn't ethical. It may have been legal, but it is in no way ethical.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  18. #97
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    A claim by an expert on the matter.
    Appeal to authority fallacy.

    ---------- Post added at 11:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    What is required has nothing to do with whether it was ethical. You are claiming she acted ethically. Hiding your behavior and then deleting the evidence isn't ethical. It may have been legal, but it is in no way ethical.
    It has everything to do with it. If a certain amount of income - say hobby income - isn't required to be reported on my tax return I haven't acted unethically in not reporting it.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  19. #98
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Appeal to authority fallacy.
    Incorrect use of the appeal to authority fallacy. The authority I was citing is a an expert as it is his job. The appeal to authority would be using some unrelated authority to support a claim (i.e. offering support for global warming because the President claims it is true). The President, is an authority, but not a valid resource for global warming. In this case, I am appealing to the person in charge of records for the State Dept. It is his area of expertise. He is an appropriate and valid source of information.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    It has everything to do with it. If a certain amount of income - say hobby income - isn't required to be reported on my tax return I haven't acted unethically in not reporting it.
    I think a more valid analogy would be, if you used obscure loopholes to avoid paying taxes, skirted the rules, and didn't get caught due to the 7 year statute of limitations, wouldn't it be fair to claim you acted unethically? If you lied about your income to make it look like it was hobby income and you got away with it, wouldn't it be fair to claim you acted unethically? You keep indicating that because Hillary was not legally obligated to do something, then she automatically acted ethically. Really, you are arguing that because she didn't get caught, she acted ethically. Again, we know she broke department rules and violated the spirit of FOIA if not the letter. That is well-within what we generally call unethical.

    Again, a clear majority of Americans believe she is unethical. In contrast, just over 1/5 of Americans view her behavior favorably. Ethics is a philosophical term, not a legal one. It is defined by society and how they view right and wrong behavior. Overwhelmingly, Americans believe her behavior has been more wrong than right. So, not only do the experts claim her behavior is questionable but the public view her behavior as untrustworthy as well.

    So, you can argue with me about whether she is truly unethical or not. The main point I am making is that her election hopes will be seriously hindered by this image. By her behavior (whether real or just perceived). In fact, in the latest Quinnipiac poll, she trails against the GOP front runners not named Trump.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...20d_story.html
    So, outside of places that vote D out of habit, she is in trouble and I believe it is strongly connected with the idea that she is void in the ethics department.

    Among the reasons offered for why people would not vote for Clinton:
    "Deeper in the poll, half or more than half of Virginia voters say Clinton is not honest and trustworthy and does not care about their needs and problems."
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  20. #99
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Incorrect use of the appeal to authority fallacy. The authority I was citing is a an expert as it is his job. The appeal to authority would be using some unrelated authority to support a claim (i.e. offering support for global warming because the President claims it is true). The President, is an authority, but not a valid resource for global warming. In this case, I am appealing to the person in charge of records for the State Dept. It is his area of expertise. He is an appropriate and valid source of information.
    There's disagreement within your source: "because these rules weren’t in effect when Clinton was in office, "she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time," said Gary Bass, founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization.

    "Unless she violated a rule dealing with the handling of classified or sensitive but unclassified information, I don’t see how she violated any law or regulation," said Bass, who is now executive director of the Bauman Foundation. "There may be a stronger argument about violating the spirit of the law, but that is a very vague area." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...low-all-rules/

    So now you're cherry picking.

    The "vague area" described by your authority "While Clinton may have technical arguments for why she complied with each of these and the other rules that have been discussed in the news, the argument that Clinton complied with the letter and spirit of the law is unsustainable," said Douglas Cox, a law professor at City University of New York who studies records preservation. same source.

    ---------- Post added at 11:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Again, we know she broke department rules and violated the spirit of FOIA if not the letter.
    That she broke department rules is unsupported. That those rules did not match up with FOIA is none of her concern and irrelevant to the conversation.

    ---------- Post added at 11:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:33 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, you can argue with me about whether she is truly unethical or not. The main point I am making is that her election hopes will be seriously hindered by this image. By her behavior (whether real or just perceived). In fact, in the latest Quinnipiac poll, she trails against the GOP front runners not named Trump.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...20d_story.html
    So, outside of places that vote D out of habit, she is in trouble and I believe it is strongly connected with the idea that she is void in the ethics department.
    Oh no, I agree, mud-slinging and character assignation is an incredibly effective tool. Especially among the weak minded and especially when combined with advertising practices - as you said "whether real or perceived"...doesn't seem to matter to you.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  21. #100
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    There's disagreement within your source: "because these rules weren’t in effect when Clinton was in office, "she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time," said Gary Bass, founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization.

    "Unless she violated a rule dealing with the handling of classified or sensitive but unclassified information, I don’t see how she violated any law or regulation," said Bass, who is now executive director of the Bauman Foundation. "There may be a stronger argument about violating the spirit of the law, but that is a very vague area." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...low-all-rules/

    So now you're cherry picking.

    The "vague area" described by your authority "While Clinton may have technical arguments for why she complied with each of these and the other rules that have been discussed in the news, the argument that Clinton complied with the letter and spirit of the law is unsustainable," said Douglas Cox, a law professor at City University of New York who studies records preservation. same source.

    ---------- Post added at 11:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 PM ----------



    That she broke department rules is unsupported. That those rules did not match up with FOIA is none of her concern and irrelevant to the conversation.

    ---------- Post added at 11:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:33 PM ----------



    Oh no, I agree, mud-slinging and character assignation is an incredibly effective tool. Especially among the weak minded and especially when combined with advertising practices - as you said "whether real or perceived"...doesn't seem to matter to you.
    Again, per Cox, "Rather, by using personal emails exclusively, she skirted the rules governing federal records management." This is entirely consistent with my argument and Bass does not contradict this.

    Bass also put out a Tweet warning that Hillary may have broken the law
    https://twitter.com/gary__bass/statu...74439110242304
    Bass' OMB Watch group, by the way, is a liberal advocacy group.

    He questioned the same thing I am questioning, with what sort of oversight did she have her aides delete the emails from her server? You are focused on whether she broken a specific rule or not. The point is that she took several unethical steps to sidestep full disclosure of her time at State Dept. Hilariously, you accuse mud-slinging as the reason people don't trust her. Par for the course, it is always anyone but Hillary's fault.

    And yes, we now she broke department rules because an email was sent out from her office which told people not to do what she was doing. There was a directive ordered from her office and she broke it.

    Of course, FOIA is her concern. She is a public official and FOIA exists so that the public is aware of the actions taken by its officials. Any decision made by her to sidestep FOIA is simply another example of her acting unethically in an attempt to hide her actions for whatever reason. It is not character assassination to bring this up. If you consider this character assassination, then exactly what was it when she charged all of Clinton's mistresses liars and sluts even though it turned out they were telling the truth. And if you wish to defend Hillary's behavior towards Bill's stable of non-Hillary women, can you also defend her actions towards women sexually harassed by men not named Bill?

    "In 1993, Hillary Clinton derided a group of women who made claims of sexual harassment against Republican senator Bob Packwood, according to Blair. “HC tired of all those whiney women, and she needs him on health care,” wrote Blair of her conversation with Hillary Clinton, who was heading up her husband’s ulitmately unsuccessful effort to reshape the U.S. health care system."
    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...nd-bill-clinto

    Talk about character assassination? That seems to be Hillary's M.O. when attempting to defend her husband from terrible women. Hillary has earned a bad reputation for her bad behaviors. Again, though, you are kinda stepping around the real issue. if a clear majority of the voters believe Hillary isn't trustworthy then under what strategy can she win a national election? You can blame the next blood moon on the public's perception of her if it makes you feel better. I'd argue that she really is a bit of a despicable person. However, either way you slice it, she is going to have an uphill battle in winning the presidency.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

 

 
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 28
    Last Post: August 13th, 2009, 07:54 AM
  2. A REAL Ironman suit?
    By southernbelle in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 14th, 2008, 07:12 AM
  3. War for oil? SUPPORT IT.
    By Apokalupsis in forum Politics
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: July 12th, 2005, 08:46 PM
  4. Bill O'Reilly hit with sexual harassment suit.
    By Booger in forum Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 15th, 2004, 01:39 PM
  5. Utterly OT: Americans travelling abroad
    By sjjs in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 8th, 2004, 10:51 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •