US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4895
Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States23247 Posts
| ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 04 2016 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote: This is what I'm talking about when I say Clinton is using rank ignorance/incompetence as a legal shield. https://twitter.com/amiraminiMD/status/771852825211068416 It's gonna be fun when the attack ads start rolling out. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 04 2016 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote: This is what I'm talking about when I say Clinton is using rank ignorance/incompetence as a legal shield. https://twitter.com/amiraminiMD/status/771852825211068416 Loretta Lynch caliber non-answers from Hillary right there. | ||
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On September 04 2016 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote: This is what I'm talking about when I say Clinton is using rank ignorance/incompetence as a legal shield. https://twitter.com/amiraminiMD/status/771852825211068416 And here im worried why my manager who is one of the smartest people I know keeps asking me to all the time to remind him on what certain clients requirements and setups are even though hes the one who set them up. I guess he just must be a rank incompetent/ignorant buffoon and not a regular human being and not a database with a personality. Also those questions are super vague.. how often did you do this ? how often did you do that ? I mean come on. How often do you take a piss in a week ? A month ? A year ? Do you recall ? How often have you felt a burning sensation while relieving yourself in the past 8 years ? | ||
GreenHorizons
United States23247 Posts
Handling classified info is part and parcel of the job. If she was doing her job without remembering she's grossly incompetent, but I'd lean toward the more likely answer that she's just lying. | ||
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On September 04 2016 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote: This is what I'm talking about when I say Clinton is using rank ignorance/incompetence as a legal shield. https://twitter.com/amiraminiMD/status/771852825211068416 Ignoring the typical twitter/reddit addiction to red lines: Paragraph 1: She can't remember if she received clearance while in Senate or State. I'm not sure what the significance here would be, but maybe someone else can fill that in for me? Otherwise this looks completely inconsequential. Paragraph 2: Doesn't know the number of times her classification authority was used. Unless this is something you're supposed to record and keep track of, not knowing a number is not weird in the slightest. Also didn't personally classify information herself. Paragraph 3: Doesn't remember the exact meeting from 8 years ago, doesn't remember the words of a paper she signed 8 years ago. Again, seems like a complete non-factor to me? Don't see how any of the stuff she doesn't remember is important at all, or is even something someone would remember. On September 04 2016 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote: She couldn't recall ever being trained on how to handle classified info, that's like a veteran McDonald's employee saying they didn't recall how to make a cheeseburger. Handling classified info is part and parcel of the job. If she was doing her job without remembering she's grossly incompetent, but I'd lean toward the more likely answer that she's just lying. Except it doesn't say that at all? She can't recall which briefing, she doesn't recall what specifically the agreement she signed says, she doesn't recall if she had clearance from Senate or State. Only weird thing is that she didn't have a hand in classifying information herself and let the existing process/people do that. But she wasn't being investigated for incorrectly classifying/declassifying information. | ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands21701 Posts
If you say you don't remember you are legally safe. The correct answer when being questioned to anything you do not remember 100% is "I don't remember". | ||
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On September 04 2016 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote: She couldn't recall ever being trained on how to handle classified info, that's like a veteran McDonald's employee saying they didn't recall how to make a cheeseburger. Handling classified info is part and parcel of the job. If she was doing her job without remembering she's grossly incompetent, but I'd lean toward the more likely answer that she's just lying. I believe it more a case of . Doesnt remember exactly and not answering is better than giving an answer that your not sure of and would make you look bad and actually means you are infact lying. Also pretending that the details of bureaucratic red tape are fundamental components to someones job is depressing to hear from educated people and a big reason why grasping at stuff like this makes the regressive left look as bad as the alt right. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands21701 Posts
On September 04 2016 07:52 WolfintheSheep wrote: Ignoring the typical twitter/reddit addiction to red lines: Paragraph 1: She can't remember if she received clearance while in Senate or State. I'm not sure what the significance here would be, but maybe someone else can fill that in for me? Otherwise this looks completely inconsequential. Paragraph 2: Doesn't know the number of times her classification authority was used. Unless this is something you're supposed to record and keep track of, not knowing a number is not weird in the slightest. Also didn't personally classify information herself. Paragraph 3: Doesn't remember the exact meeting from 8 years ago, doesn't remember the words of a paper she signed 8 years ago. Again, seems like a complete non-factor to me? Don't see how any of the stuff she doesn't remember is important at all, or is even something someone would remember. 1) not if but when. So she doesnt remember the exact date from 8 years ago (no one would). | ||
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On September 04 2016 07:56 Gorsameth wrote: 1) not if but when. So she doesnt remember the act days from 8 years ago (no one would). Well, I think that's what I said? The question was if she had clearance while a Senator and that carried over to State, or if she received clearance after leaving Senate. At least that's what I assume it means, I don't really know how the whole appointments and movement thing works. | ||
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On September 04 2016 08:16 xDaunt wrote: I don't think y'all are reading those notes correctly. The notes are illustrating that she does not know how to handle confidential info. Then please quote the notes that say as much, because that tweet has almost nothing of interest. | ||
Acrofales
Spain18004 Posts
On September 04 2016 08:16 xDaunt wrote: I don't think y'all are reading those notes correctly. The notes are illustrating that she does not know how to handle confidential info. You're right, we're all dumb. Please enlighten us, o illustrious one! | ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 04 2016 08:41 WolfintheSheep wrote: Then please quote the notes that say as much, because that tweet has almost nothing of interest. That second paragraph isn't clear enough to you? | ||
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 04 2016 08:44 Acrofales wrote: You're right, we're all dumb. Please enlighten us, o illustrious one! I do my best not to jump to conclusions. | ||
| ||