Republican Hypocracies

[CowboyX]

So what does your thoughts have to do with his resignation?
He resigned because you "thought"?

Let's speculate some more. He resigned (or maybe was forced to) to take the heat off the administration. Or to try and save himself by making it look like he just made a mistake in reporting - that seems to be the administration's story.

Are you saying we should just accept what the administration says? That wouldn't be what was done in the Benghazi case. More hypocrisy?

---------- Post added at 02:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 PM ----------

More ********.. .man is it raining in here?
Are you really so blinded by your own bias that you can't even tell that isn't what I said? .. I guess so because the alternative is to think you are misrepresenting on purpose.

I never said that it doesn't have to be any substance. The substance is what is generally debated, but there must be a reason that can be compared with reality.

So your forwarding that this guy resigned because there was collusion with the Russians.. over what? They seem to be talking about sanctions not election manipulation.
So there is no "substance" to your position.

Right, we'll manipulate you into power and then you'll be beholden to us for, well since this is speculation, whatever. In this case the removal of sanctions.

---------- Post added at 02:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 PM ----------




[Personal Attack Removed]

[MindTrap028]

I'll wait why you gather your thoughts and present an actual case.

Any time is good, just when you have the chance. Don't rush.

[CowboyX]

Any time is good, just when you have the chance. Don't rush.

That'd be the ranking republicans job.

[CowboyX]

Jason Chaffetz will finally investigate something — a national park’s tweet

"Congressional Republicans have faced angry constituents in recent weeks for their lack of interest in Russian hacking and President Donald Trump’s conflict of interests. Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz has encountered the most intense heat, as the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform appears to be mostly indifferent to the president.

Earlier this month, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer hammered Chaffetz for his apparent apathy in serving as a check on the country’s executive branch. Blitzer may have spoken too soon, however. On Tuesday, The Salt Lake Tribune reported that the House Oversight Committee will indeed launch a probe on the federal government by looking into a harmless tweet sent by the official Twitter account of Bryce Canyon National Park."

[durgazone]

Thanks for info....

[CowboyX]

As Indiana Governor, Mike Pence Used Personal Email for Public Business and Was Hacked

"According to a report by the Indianapolis Star out tonight, Vice President Mike Pence regularly used a private email account to conduct state business while he was Governor of Indiana.

And that email account was hacked.

Emails released to IndyStar in response to a public records request show Pence communicated via his personal AOL account with top advisers on topics ranging from security gates at the governor’s residence to the state’s response to terror attacks across the globe. In one email, Pence’s top state homeland security adviser relayed an update from the FBI regarding the arrests of several men on federal terror-related charges.

Cybersecurity experts say the emails raise concerns about whether such sensitive information was adequately protected from hackers, given that personal accounts like Pence’s are typically less secure than government email accounts.In fact, Pence’s personal account was hacked last summer.

In response to the story, Pence’s current office responded that Pence “maintained a state email account and a personal email account” as governor. The office further highlighted that Pence was in compliance with Indiana state law and that emails from both accounts are currently being archived.

While Indiana law does allow public officials to use personal email accounts, it is also understood that all emails revolving around public business need to be retained for records.

Throughout the campaign, Donald Trump used Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while Secretary of State against her on a consistent basis, calling her “guilty a hell” and running attack ads against her, all while rally crowds chanted “lock her up.”"

[MindTrap028]

Throughout the campaign, Donald Trump used Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while Secretary of State against her on a consistent basis, calling her “guilty a hell” and running attack ads against her, all while rally crowds chanted “lock her up.”"

Yea, apparently "state secrets" are more an issue than whatever a governor does.
Also, there is the whole evidence of destroying e-mails that Hillary faced.

So, not an example of hypocrisy as it is apples and oranges.
Keep swinging for those fences though.

[CowboyX]

Yea, apparently "state secrets" are more an issue than whatever a governor does.
Also, there is the whole evidence of destroying e-mails that Hillary faced.

So, not an example of hypocrisy as it is apples and oranges.
Keep swinging for those fences though.

"on topics ranging from security gates at the governor’s residence to the state’s response to terror attacks across the globe."

Sounds like state security issues to me.

That Hillary used a private server wasn't an issue? If not I agree it is apples and oranges, unfortunately for you that wasn't the case.

[MindTrap028]

on topics ranging from security gates at the governor’s residence to the state’s response to terror attacks across the globe."

Sounds like state security issues to me.

See this is where the problem is with you. You apparently can't recognize the difference between. "State secrets" and "state security issues".
Those are not the same thing. The former is a crime to discuss in a way that is "unsecured", the latter simply is not.

That Hillary used a private server wasn't an issue? If not I agree it is apples and oranges, unfortunately for you that wasn't the case.

No, it wasn't. It was that she had a private server AND destroyed state records. (A fact that was proven), AND She had national secrets of even the "highest level" on them when it was illegal to do so(a fact also proven).

No one cares that state officials of all levels have private accounts. That is a fact that I assume applies to everyone in the modern age.
The problem comes when you do things which are ILLEGAL with them, and in the case of the federal gov and certain positions which handle classified info (a fact that I don't think state governors do.. please let me know otherwise) can become a real issue if they are "extremely careless" (AKA negligent) as Hillary was.

So yes, it is apples and oranges until you can show that the other facts that made it a problem for Hillary were at play with Pence.
A thing that could completely be a real problem, because as was noted in the Hillary E-mail discussion this seems to be an area that the entire government is negligent and ignorant on.
However you must use the same Logic and reasoning and standard if you are going to cry fowl. .. which you really don't seem capable of doing.

[CowboyX]

See this is where the problem is with you. You apparently can't recognize the difference between. "State secrets" and "state security issues".
Those are not the same thing. The former is a crime to discuss in a way that is "unsecured", the latter simply is not.


No, it wasn't. It was that she had a private server AND destroyed state records. (A fact that was proven), AND She had national secrets of even the "highest level" on them when it was illegal to do so(a fact also proven).

No one cares that state officials of all levels have private accounts. That is a fact that I assume applies to everyone in the modern age.
The problem comes when you do things which are ILLEGAL with them, and in the case of the federal gov and certain positions which handle classified info (a fact that I don't think state governors do.. please let me know otherwise) can become a real issue if they are "extremely careless" (AKA negligent) as Hillary was.

So yes, it is apples and oranges until you can show that the other facts that made it a problem for Hillary were at play with Pence.
A thing that could completely be a real problem, because as was noted in the Hillary E-mail discussion this seems to be an area that the entire government is negligent and ignorant on.
However you must use the same Logic and reasoning and standard if you are going to cry fowl. .. which you really don't seem capable of doing.

Moving the goal posts, unless you show that it was known at the time that Hillary had transmitted classified information when the story broke about her private server. A very big deal was made that she had a private server and was break the law in doing so just in that alone.

[MindTrap028]

Moving the goal posts, unless you show that it was known at the time that Hillary had transmitted classified information when the story broke about her private server. A very big deal was made that she had a private server and was break the law in doing so just in that alone.

Challenge
Support.

It was never considered illegal for her to have the private server. It became an issue when they asked for gov documents, and she destroyed her server.


Just a refresher...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politi...mail-timeline/

"The State Department requests that all former secretaries of state "submit any records in their possession for proper preservation."


Also in 2014, at the request of the State Department, Clinton hands over 55,000 pages — approximately 30,000 emails. Left out were emails deemed by her and her staff to be "personal."

March 3, 2015 -- State Department spokeswoman Maria Harf says: "[There's] no indication that Secretary Clinton used her personal email account for anything but unclassified purposes ... While Secretary Clinton did not have a classified email system, she did have multiple other ways of communicating in a classified manner, including assistants printing documents for her, secure phone calls and secure video conferences."

March 27, 2015 -- Rep. Trey Gowdy makes the statement, "Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server."
Clinton's lawyer responds in a letter that she "has maintained and preserved copies" of work-related or potentially work-related emails that were turned over to the State Department late in 2014. The lawyer, David Kendall, also stated that federal law governing record retention requires that each federal employee individually decide what emails must be preserved.

It wasn't the fact that she had a private server, it is that she destroyed it.. you know when they were under a subpoena.
Then of course all the things she said between the dates above, were eventually shown to be false.. She did have classified info, she did destroy e-mails that were work related. etc... etc.. etc.

So, I supported my position, support or retract your baseless assertion in your sad attempt to equate two apparently essentially different situations.

[CowboyX]

Challenge
Support.

It was never considered illegal for her to have the private server. It became an issue when they asked for gov documents, and she destroyed her server.

Yeah, right:

"Clinton's Republican opponents have used her email practices against her. Businessman Donald Trump, who currently leads in the GOP polls, said he thinks Clinton "committed a crime" by using a private email server. At a campaign event in Nevada, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush argued that Clinton's use of a private email server outside the State Department's firewalls put American state secrets within reach of hackers, comparing the former secretary of state to Edward Snowden, whom Bush called "a traitor to our country."

Florida Senator Marco Rubio called Clinton's use of a private email server "irresponsible." Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker called Clinton's email habits a "potentially criminal offense." And former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee called it "beyond outrageously illegal.""http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clin...-secret-362822

I'll agree more allegations piled on as the scandal grew, but she was heavily criticized for just using the email server.

[MindTrap028]

Yeah, right:

Yes.. exactly right. Because the context of all those quotes are just as Jeb bush said.

Jeb Bush argued that Clinton's use of a private email server outside the State Department's firewalls put American state secrets within reach of hacker

Your simply ignoring the context of all those people decrying the server. your simply guilty of Cherry picking.

OR else
All your quotes have only to do with a private server. So your being dishonest by comparing a private e-mail to a private server.

Which would you rather? proper context is important.

[CowboyX]

Yes.. exactly right. Because the context of all those quotes are just as Jeb bush said.



Your simply ignoring the context of all those people decrying the server. your simply guilty of Cherry picking.

OR else
All your quotes have only to do with a private server. So your being dishonest by comparing a private e-mail to a private server.

Which would you rather? proper context is important.

The context of Donald Trump's (and the others) statement beyond the obvious "said he thinks Clinton "committed a crime" by using a private email server." is yours to prove. I have supported my argument that the mere use of a private server was criticized.

Those statements were aggregated in a news article which in no way establishes the context you are sadly trying to claim.


Oh, and this was discussed at length in this thread => Mind Trapped by : So the Clinton scandal is real. Where the actual illegality of her simply using a private server was thoroughly discussed.

[MindTrap028]

Those statements were aggregated in a news article which in no way establishes the context you are sadly trying to claim.

Well, then the relevant context is not presented and thus doesn't support your position, and makes you guilty of cherry picking.
I supported mine, and the context in your own link. It is very clear that the references to her "private server" were all in the context of how she used it.
To think otherwise is pretty blind to the history of the debate.

I also offered the overall context of all the comments by offering the relevant time line factors.

[CowboyX]

Well, then the relevant context is not presented

That would be your job.

[MindTrap028]

That would be your job.

I did when I showed the timeline, clarifying the context of all the comments on the topic.
It would be your job to show that he context is different, which would be hard because even your link notes the context.

Your simply mistaking the reference of "private server" as specific when it is simply short hand for the whole issue at the time.
Kinda like "Clinton e-mail scandal" does not exclude the lying that she did in regards to it, or how even though it doesn't say specifically is also a reference to her destroying evidence.

You just need to be more aware of the overall context of what was going on at the time.. but you seem to be more interested in cherrypicking.


Also

You have failed to address this point.

All your quotes have only to do with a private server. So your being dishonest by comparing a private e-mail to a private server.

[CowboyX]

Also

You have failed to address this point.

All your quotes have only to do with a private server. So your being dishonest by comparing a private e-mail to a private server.

I don't know what that means please explain.

We're talking about your assertion that "It was never considered illegal for her to have the private server."

To which I have proven it was considered as such by some people and even discussed by yourself as a problem in another thread.

If it is you assertion that Donald Trump was talking about more when he said "he thinks Clinton "committed a crime" by using a private email server." that is yours to prove. Even if there was more going on (the "context" as you say) it doesn't mean he wasn't just talking about the server. You have to prove that was his intent because his words are clear.

But let's say it was, it doesn't alter the wrongness of your statement as the mere use of the private server was called into questions and hashed out and statement's like Trump's were made - the accusations of using a private email server and sending classified information are somewhat mutually exclusive. After the illegality of her using the server was debunked, sure, the focus moved on.

That doesn't mean it didn't happen as you've asserted.

[MindTrap028]

After the illegality of her using the server was debunked, sure, the focus moved on.

It was never about simply having a private server. It was always about her having a private server AND using it for public business AND that public business involving classified e-mails.

It was never considered illegal by anyone (not even trump) to be illegal to own a private server or for a public official to use it for their private business.

What set this all off (again context, which I am supporting)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politi...mail-timeline/

The State Department requests that all former secretaries of state "submit any records in their possession for proper preservation."
Also in 2014, at the request of the State Department, Clinton hands over 55,000 pages — approximately 30,000 emails. Left out were emails deemed by her and her staff to be "personal."

This was the revelation that she was using a PRIVATE SERVER for PUBLIC WORK, which was TOP SECRET.
Those are all the backdrop of the "scandal", add to that her destruction of those servers in the face of subpena.

So since 2014 that is the context. Trump made his comment after that, and thus should be taken as a short hand for the whole, not simply a part.

----
Now how does that apply to a state official.
Honestly, I couldn't care less if any state or local gov official publishes all their correspondents in the news paper. Because I am not aware that they deal with any information that would be classified. That was a huge problem for Clinton and makes any comparison that lacks that element.. apples and oranges. I have asked that you address this specific point because if you could show that pence mishandled classified info, that would change my opinion.
As to using a private e-mail for non-classified state business. Well, we addressed that in the other thread, and I think it is an issue of the gov being behind the times on the issue. All business should be done on gov servers, but that isn't the current law, and was something that the Clinton scandal brought to light, but that was never the real meat of the complaint.

To which I have proven it was considered as such by some people and even discussed by yourself as a problem in another thread.

Not really, you asserted that, but didn't quote anyone.
Further your link to the CNN, only picks quotes out of context and then commentates on the intent. So what a reporter says, isn't a quote, it is his opinion about a partial quote
and given the overall context (which I provided) STILL doesn't fit your narrative.

I don't know what that means please explain.

O.k. I'll try to explain.

Given your position as true.
The two examples as you offer them are not comparable.
You offer quotes of republicans having a problem with a private server.
Then you attack Republicans for being cool with a private e-mail.

Those are two different things. All you have shown is that republicans have a beef with public officials owning servers, not private e-mails.

So you need to do a better job connecting the two.

[CowboyX]

So since 2014 that is the context. Trump made his comment after that, and thus should be taken as a short hand for the whole, not simply a part.

Nope.

Even if that were true her use f the private server was hashed out and arguments were made that it was wrong.