|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 11 2015 08:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
whats the big deal with her using two accounts? i dont get it. based on what i read it sounds like adequate security was taken for her personal email. did she claim to disclose all emails and then only disclose from her work account? It seems to me to be split down party lines, kind of like benghazi. Republicans say it's a huge deal and will continue to bring it up for the next year while democrats don't care.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 11 2015 06:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 06:37 oneofthem wrote:On March 11 2015 06:00 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2015 05:51 oneofthem wrote:On March 11 2015 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2015 03:37 oneofthem wrote:
daunt you realize iran is under the threat of israeli nukes much more than vice versa. That's fine with me. Israel is an ally. Iran is not. I'm also much more confident in Israel being rationale with nuclear weapons than Iran. you are, but same cannot be said for iran. iran complaining about israel's nuclear weapons is indeed a legitimate complaint given the strength of ultranationalists in israel. I'm not trying to be fair. The bottom line is that Iran is a geopolitical enemy of the US. It is in our interest to keep the boot on their throats UNLESS we are going to gain something meaningful in return for lifting it. And just to be clear, goading Iran into fighting ISIS isn't enough. Iran is going to do that anyway for obvious reasons germane to their national interests. i'm not asking you to be fair or consider things from the iranian perspective, but you cited iran potentially having nukes as a regional destabilization factor, which is an objective consequence of what other regional entities think about the situation. the simple fact is, israel having nukes is the same sort of destabilizing, arms race fueling move, by your own logic. iran and israel's positions are different enough so that iran having nukes won't be the same sort of stabilizing factor israel's weapons are. however, the fear of iranian nukes is more paranoia than reality. Let's drop the strawman arguments. I'm not arguing that Israel having nukes helps Middle Eastern stability. Whether Israel has nukes is irrelevant to whether Iran obtaining nukes is a good thing from the American -- or even Middle Eastern -- point of view. And even if you want to compare Iran and Israel having nukes, it is very clear from what other Arab nations are saying (ie the Saudis) that they perceive the prospect of a nuclear Iran to be a much greater threat than an already nuclear Israel.
saudi's have their special brand of aggressive regional objective, namely getting rid of iran in its current form. a nuke will prevent that from happening. if it is at all possible of an outcome they'd lobby for a u.s. led ground invasion of iran. they don't feel threatened by iranian nukes more than they are threatened by iran in its current, aggressive shia form. it's just one more arrow they can pull against iran in their own little war.
nevermind that i think having nukes won't help iran in their regional or international situation, the present argument is that iran having nukes won't lead to an arms race. i mentioned israel to play off of your assertion of an arms race, that if such a race exists it would have been started with israel more than four decades ago.
although it is worth noting that iran is in a pretty unique situation in that it does not have nuclear power backers. having a publicly declared nuclear weapon program against treaty obligations is a very heavy burden. it is much more efficient and effective to have nuclear allies. saudi arabia has u.s. and pakistan. pakistan has itself. the other arab states are satellites of saudis. so really the arms race thing might be real but it only affects iran.
|
On March 11 2015 08:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
whats the big deal with her using two accounts? i dont get it. based on what i read it sounds like adequate security was taken for her personal email. did she claim to disclose all emails and then only disclose from her work account?
Put it this way - have you ever had a job where they let you conduct business on their behalf with your personal e-mail account?
|
On March 11 2015 08:38 calgar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 08:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
whats the big deal with her using two accounts? i dont get it. based on what i read it sounds like adequate security was taken for her personal email. did she claim to disclose all emails and then only disclose from her work account? It seems to me to be split down party lines, kind of like benghazi. Republicans say it's a huge deal and will continue to bring it up for the next year while democrats don't care.
Democrats care that she would give Republicans something so stupid to go after her on and reflects the whole taking her support for granted thing.
Democrats also know that it's the same thing practically every politician who uses email has been doing since they realized how easy it was to screw up. Of course none of the Republicans are/were upset about when it happens elsewhere. Question is will any Republicans call out Christie's camp or Bush for doing essentially the same thing. (especially Christie as the private accounts were responsible for this...Yeah that's secret government business on gmail and yahoo... The hypocrisy couldn't be more transparent if it tried.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kRlB0i5.png)
|
On March 11 2015 08:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 08:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
whats the big deal with her using two accounts? i dont get it. based on what i read it sounds like adequate security was taken for her personal email. did she claim to disclose all emails and then only disclose from her work account? Because she's using her private email account (and server), none of those emails were permanently recorded for records keeping purposes. She now has admitted that she has deleted "personal" emails, and the people in her camp can't even keep their story straight. These facts raise the specter of all sorts of impropriety -- namely that she has been able to successfully cover up potential misconduct.
is there a legal requirement that her emails be permanently recorded? i assume hillary is smart enough to not put cover ups in written form regardless so i question whether she did this for cover up purposes.
On March 11 2015 08:52 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 08:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
whats the big deal with her using two accounts? i dont get it. based on what i read it sounds like adequate security was taken for her personal email. did she claim to disclose all emails and then only disclose from her work account? Put it this way - have you ever had a job where they let you conduct business on their behalf with your personal e-mail account?
i conduct business by personal email when i am on vacation as it is easier than accessing my firm's server. i tend not to contact clients though, just inhouse.
|
There is indeed a legal requirement for the emails to be recorded.
|
On March 11 2015 09:09 zlefin wrote:
There is indeed a legal requirement for the emails to be recorded.
i just did a google search, but didnt find anything. do you have a source?
if there is a legal requirement then she broke the law and should get slammed for it.
|
On March 11 2015 09:09 zlefin wrote:
There is indeed a legal requirement for the emails to be recorded.
Best I can tell no one is suggesting she actually broke any law (provably) anymore. There were requirements that people can imply she didn't follow but there is no legal guilt of any crime.
The law most people are referencing came after she left.
|
i think i found the handbook.
All Government employees and contractors are required by law to make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency (Federal Records Act, or “FRA,” 44 U.S.C. 3101 et seq). In addition, Federal regulations govern the life cycle of these records: they must be properly stored and preserved, available for retrieval, and subject to appropriate approved disposition schedules.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/85696.pdf
|
On March 11 2015 09:12 dAPhREAk wrote:i think i found the handbook. Show nested quote +All Government employees and contractors are required by law to make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency (Federal Records Act, or “FRA,” 44 U.S.C. 3101 et seq). In addition, Federal regulations govern the life cycle of these records: they must be properly stored and preserved, available for retrieval, and subject to appropriate approved disposition schedules. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/85696.pdf
Yeah the issue is unless they find an email recipient with relevant information in the email they received, that she didn't release they can't prove she didn't. So most have moved on to using the perception of criminality to lessen voter turnout for Hillary.
|
|
|
Haha, that is funny. I remember the petition to build a death star, that one was cool. Carelessly worded petition though, as it says treason, when it's not treason which is defined in the constitution, but at most the felony specified in the act, and even that sounds like quite a stretch, I'd have to read the statute to be sure.
I agree it'll be interesting to see what the admin response is, though it will probably just be a repeat of the response they've made elsewhere.
What the response should be imho, is one written by the attorney general explaining the legalities involved, and why the senators' action is not a violation of the logan act (assuming it isn't), plus of course a note that it's still a bad thing they did.
|
I was doing some reading yesterday, and in the US treason falls under 3 categories, stuff like aiding and abetting enemies, levying war, etc.
The Logan act is separate from that stuff, but it does expressly prohibit unauthorized citizens from conducting diplomacy with foreign governments. Whether the citizen is a cafeteria worker or senator is largely irrelevant, what matters is that diplomacy is the purview of the executive branch and those it authorizes.
The interesting point is that no one has actually been tried under the act, but hey there's a first one for everything. It's been considered a few times though.
|
|
|
On March 11 2015 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 09:12 dAPhREAk wrote:i think i found the handbook. All Government employees and contractors are required by law to make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency (Federal Records Act, or “FRA,” 44 U.S.C. 3101 et seq). In addition, Federal regulations govern the life cycle of these records: they must be properly stored and preserved, available for retrieval, and subject to appropriate approved disposition schedules. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/85696.pdf Yeah the issue is unless they find an email recipient with relevant information in the email they received, that she didn't release they can't prove she didn't. So most have moved on to using t]he perception of criminality to lessen voter turnout for Hillary.
She admitted she deleted emails. This is the same as federal agents finding Enron employees shredding files and refusing to do anything because they took the word of the employees that the files did not contain "relevant information".
Deleted emails
Her foundation is accepting donations from foreign entities while she is in office. She has been in the middle of the Benghazi scandal. Not to mention her past history of skirting the law.
And we are just supposed to believe her when she says she didn't delete any relevant emails?
|
On March 11 2015 10:04 ticklishmusic wrote:
I was doing some reading yesterday, and in the US treason falls under 3 categories, stuff like aiding and abetting enemies, levying war, etc.
The Logan act is separate from that stuff, but it does expressly prohibit unauthorized citizens from conducting diplomacy with foreign governments. Whether the citizen is a cafeteria worker or senator is largely irrelevant, what matters is that diplomacy is the purview of the executive branch and those it authorizes.
The interesting point is that no one has actually been tried under the act, but hey there's a first one for everything. It's been considered a few times though.
So is it that the senators talked to a foreign government that has you all upset or that they dared to speak out against the Emperor? As far as I know, Congressman have been visiting foreign leaders and countries for ages and not always under the auspices of the President. Should we line them up against the wall as well? Or is it just their politics that motivates the left to beat this drum?
|
Everytime someone seriously references something called "the Bengazi scandal," a party gets its tea.
You heard it here folks (or maybe on Fox News first); Hillary used her private email to cover up the deaths of Americans abroad! She'll stop at nothing to seize the Presidency!
|
Hah. "Good fucking luck" is right.
|
On March 11 2015 10:11 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 09:12 dAPhREAk wrote:i think i found the handbook. All Government employees and contractors are required by law to make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency (Federal Records Act, or “FRA,” 44 U.S.C. 3101 et seq). In addition, Federal regulations govern the life cycle of these records: they must be properly stored and preserved, available for retrieval, and subject to appropriate approved disposition schedules. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/85696.pdf Yeah the issue is unless they find an email recipient with relevant information in the email they received, that she didn't release they can't prove she didn't. So most have moved on to using t]he perception of criminality to lessen voter turnout for Hillary. She admitted she deleted emails. This is the same as federal agents finding Enron employees shredding files and refusing to do anything because they took the word of the employees that the files did not contain "relevant information". Deleted emailsHer foundation is accepting donations from foreign entities while she is in office. She has been in the middle of the Benghazi scandal. Not to mention her past history of skirting the law. And we are just supposed to believe her when she says she didn't delete any relevant emails?
Well legally yes, we do have to believe her (at this point). You're free to be skeptical, just keep in mind your skepticism wont stand up to the usual "the evidence says she is not-guilty" dismissals of skepticism usually reserved for police incidents and such.
Essentially it's no better than prejudging Officer Wilson's incident as a symptom of a racist system.
|
On March 11 2015 10:15 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 10:04 ticklishmusic wrote:
I was doing some reading yesterday, and in the US treason falls under 3 categories, stuff like aiding and abetting enemies, levying war, etc.
The Logan act is separate from that stuff, but it does expressly prohibit unauthorized citizens from conducting diplomacy with foreign governments. Whether the citizen is a cafeteria worker or senator is largely irrelevant, what matters is that diplomacy is the purview of the executive branch and those it authorizes.
The interesting point is that no one has actually been tried under the act, but hey there's a first one for everything. It's been considered a few times though. So is it that the senators talked to a foreign government that has you all upset or that they dared to speak out against the Emperor? As far as I know, Congressman have been visiting foreign leaders and countries for ages and not always under the auspices of the President. Should we line them up against the wall as well? Or is it just their politics that motivates the left to beat this drum?
Hah, you called Obama the emperor. Go home kid, come back when you've taken a basic civics course.
Here's some extra credit reading though: http://thehill.com/homenews/news/12355-house-republican-wants-to-restrict-pelosis-travel
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
