|
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 July 08 2016 02:06 ticklishmusic wrote:
was her server hacked
i dont know
what do you mean
we have no evidence that it was hacked
so it could have been hacked?
-__-
i know this isnt a court case, but this is a mockery of justice
"Dear director of the fucking FBI,
Please prove a negative."
I did not anticipate this would be as blatantly childish. I thought it was disingenuous, but at least sophisticated and proper. It's just a shit show. This is like reading Youtube comments. This is my first time watching something like this and it is downright appalling.
|
On July 08 2016 02:06 ticklishmusic wrote:
was her server hacked
i dont know
what do you mean
we have no evidence that it was hacked
so it could have been hacked?
-__-
i know this isnt a court case, but this is a mockery of justice
Congress member: Please prove that something never took place or happened.
FBI: That is impossible. Some of you have law degrees, are you people for real right now?
Congress member: So it is safe to assume it happened then.
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE SHOOTINGS? THEY'RE NOT RELATED TO THE INDICTMENT STATEMENTS
REEEEEEEEEEEE
|
Indicting of all members of government imo is Comey's inability to reasonably assume these people know anything.
|
It would have been a better question to ask, how easily hackable the server was, and how likely it was that a successful hack would be detected.
If the combination is Trivial-Not likely, well then.
|
pointing out that the fbi has a real job related to national security issues and crimes that isn't testifying to republicans on a case like this i would think
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
i would ask if the current leaks of emails from said server matches what was actually on the server.
|
On July 08 2016 02:10 ticklishmusic wrote:
pointing out that the fbi has a real job related to national security issues and crimes that isn't testifying to republicans on a case like this i would think
A case that they could prosecute if they wanted to. They don't need the FBI's approval to proceed.
|
On July 08 2016 02:11 amazingxkcd wrote:
i would ask if the current leaks of emails from said server matches what was actually on the server.
hey, i hate to tell you, and i think i did tell you when you posted earlier, that the "leak" was just a subset of emails that had been previously released related to certain topics with OCR.
|
Hilary Clinton seriously didn't know you could wipe a server? That servers could be hacked into from the outside? Seriously? This is someone that held a top government position?
I asked my 83 year old grandmother that has never turned on a computer in her life and she said 'yeah, it happened in a soap opera I watched'. Maybe she should run for POTUS.
|
On July 08 2016 02:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 02:06 ticklishmusic wrote:
was her server hacked
i dont know
what do you mean
we have no evidence that it was hacked
so it could have been hacked?
-__-
i know this isnt a court case, but this is a mockery of justice "Dear director of the fucking FBI, Please prove a negative." I did not anticipate this would be as blatantly childish. I thought it was disingenuous, but at least sophisticated and proper. It's just a shit show. This is like reading Youtube comments. This is my first time watching something like this and it is downright appalling.
Benghazi was just as bad. Planned Parenthood hearing was just as bad.
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On July 08 2016 02:13 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 02:11 amazingxkcd wrote:
i would ask if the current leaks of emails from said server matches what was actually on the server. hey, i hate to tell you, and i think i did tell you when you posted earlier, that the "leak" was just a subset of emails that had been previously released related to certain topics with OCR.
I just want to ask about that Moloch email. that would be funny af for Comey to explain
|
On July 07 2016 23:41 ticklishmusic wrote:
This is pretty pathetic, Gowdy's found that 3 documents had classified markings out of 60,000. It's like saying you've never been late in your life but it turns out you've been a couple minutes late a couple times because, y'know, that's really hard. And somehow that's a terrible lie which is a sign of moral turpitude.
Except being late is not the same as leaking highly sensitive classified top secret material.
Your argument can be reformulated better as 'it's like saying you've never murdered an innocent in your life but it turns out you've murdered a couple innocents a couple times because, y'know' to better show the absurdity of the reasoning behind it.
It sounds a lot like you're saying if most of the time someone isn't committing crimes, then when they do commit them it should just be forgiven and ignored.
On July 07 2016 23:50 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 23:45 LegalLord wrote:On July 07 2016 23:41 ticklishmusic wrote:
This is pretty pathetic, Gowdy's found that 3 documents had classified markings out of 60,000. It's like saying you've never been late in your life but it turns out you've been a couple minutes late a couple times because, y'know, that's really hard. And somehow that's a terrible lie which is a sign of moral turpitude. Yeah, I only mishandled a few classified documents in such a way that they could have been compromised. No big, just a few. The standard she is being held to is pretty damn high.
A presidential candidate is being held to a pretty damn high standard by being held accountable for her incompetence in positions of privileged access to safeguard classified information and for committing crimes out of negligence.
On July 07 2016 23:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 23:45 LegalLord wrote:On July 07 2016 23:41 ticklishmusic wrote:
This is pretty pathetic, Gowdy's found that 3 documents had classified markings out of 60,000. It's like saying you've never been late in your life but it turns out you've been a couple minutes late a couple times because, y'know, that's really hard. And somehow that's a terrible lie which is a sign of moral turpitude. Yeah, I only mishandled a few classified documents in such a way that they could have been compromised. No big, just a few. And we don’t get the content of those emails, so we don’t get to know if the information is dangerous or harmless. The thing about documents being classified is that they are made that way by people. It is not automatic that all documents that are classified are dangerous or even should be considered secret.
Is your argument that since classifications are made by people, they are arbitrarily assigned without regard to danger or harm they might cause should they be made public?
Information is literally determined to be classified based on those facts. 'muh relativism' is not a logical excuse for her actions.
|
On July 08 2016 02:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 02:06 ticklishmusic wrote:
was her server hacked
i dont know
what do you mean
we have no evidence that it was hacked
so it could have been hacked?
-__-
i know this isnt a court case, but this is a mockery of justice "Dear director of the fucking FBI, Please prove a negative." I did not anticipate this would be as blatantly childish. I thought it was disingenuous, but at least sophisticated and proper. It's just a shit show. This is like reading Youtube comments. This is my first time watching something like this and it is downright appalling.
as someone who does watch a fair bit of cspan; it's not uncommon to have appalling questioning occurring in hearings, especially on politically sensitive and partisan topics.
Some hearings are better and they're asking good adn reasonable questions.
|
I'm not too thrilled about Comey's reasoning - doesn't seem unreasonable but certainly very questionable -as presented to the Congressional committee. The "carelessness vs negligence" issue particularly stands out. But man, this hearing has been a shitshow for most of it. Too many of both the D and R members are being really shitty partisans about this.
|
Comey seems like he is literally trying to tell them how to clean this up and they are too incompetent to do it. He doesn't seem to like the sucking up from the left either.
|
So, can we get Comey in congress to replace the losers currently there? Where's he from?
|
On July 08 2016 02:18 LegalLord wrote:
I'm not too thrilled about Comey's reasoning - doesn't seem unreasonable but certainly very questionable -as presented to the Congressional committee. The "carelessness vs negligence" issue particularly stands out. But man, this hearing has been a shitshow for most of it. Too many of both the D and R members are being really shitty partisans about this.
The standard under the the specific law seems pretty restrictive:
classified information “be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.”
And per his testimony, that charge has only be brought once. Since she set up a server, but did not place the classified information that server, I don't know if they could meet the prongs of the law. I believe would need to prove that she knew classified information would be put on to the server.
|
On July 08 2016 00:31 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 00:26 biology]major wrote:On July 08 2016 00:15 The_Red_Viper wrote:On July 08 2016 00:08 biology]major wrote:On July 07 2016 23:34 BallinWitStalin wrote:Umm....no. That's just....not how proportions and math works. You need to rethink your math here. I think the proportion of african americans in the US is around 12 or 13 percent. If a quarter of police shootings are black folks, then they are far, far over-represented in police deaths than they should be (for technical statistical details they are actually shot at much greater than twice the rate because when you analyze differences in proportions you convert to odds ratios, but this is a bit above most stats level education), if shootings were "randomly distributed" among the population. This is not a x > y, this is a case of "the proportion of y is much higher than it should be if we were to just randomly sample the population". As op mentioned black people commit crimes at a higher rate than the rest of the population, so you have to factor that into it as well. There are a lot of crimes which wouldn't need to result in police shooting people to death. All these oh so smart naïve fallacys here are (almost) useless to begin with. Would the "Falcon Heights Shooting" already be defined as a "crime" here? Would a white have been shot in the same circumstance? That's the question you have to ask, not if we can somehow interprete data the way we want (that there is no problem indeed) To answer the question if white would have been shot in this circumstance, It all comes down to subconscious profiling. If the white guy was tattooed up and looked like a criminal then yeah the cop coulda felt he was in danger when he reached into his pocket, or it coulda been a black man in a suit and maybe the same situation wouldn't have happened. We subconsciously profile for good reason, it helps keep us alive and is efficient. I think these last two killings have been a combination of assholery and incompetence/poor training, but racism is still something I am not convinced of. Cops need body cams, and need to be trained better. The FBI should also investigate all of these cases and come to their own conclusions and honestly these cops should be tried in court for murder/incompetence (would any reasonable police officer have fired or handled that situation in a similar way?) Ok we got the easy solution then, black people should simply always wear their best suit because it decreases the chance of being shot to death by white police men. I think that is fair enough.
This smartass comment does nothing to address his point.
|
On July 08 2016 02:20 zlefin wrote:
So, can we get Comey in congress to replace the losers currently there? Where's he from?
nah he does more good where he is now
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
