EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5475
| 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. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
Can you prove Comey wrong? Because Gowdy sure didn't. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
| ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On October 10 2016 15:54 Biff The Understudy wrote: Oh yeah, now conspiracy theories. Like, the Obama administration totally decides what parliamentary commissions and the FBI decide. I mean, what's wrong with you? What "scandal" are you even talking about????? http://www.vox.com/cards/hillary-clinton-email-scandal/hillary-clinton-email-facts I'm honestly such a sucker for well-designed web content. Also liberal bias but whatever...+ Show Spoiler + liberal bias is stupid anyways because the whole point of being liberal is being open to different ideas. Not that everyone does that but it's stupid that there's people who aren't fucking liberal | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7916 Posts
On October 10 2016 16:18 RoomOfMush wrote: Hard to believe there is that many trump supporters reading this thread. Who is voting in these? A bot. Some people have nothing better to do apparently.. Anyway. Fact check of the debate by the nyt. It's a butchery for Trump, obviously. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/09/us/elections/fact-check-debate.html | ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9491 Posts
On October 10 2016 16:15 JW_DTLA wrote: Can you prove Comey wrong? Because Gowdy sure didn't. I was just providing the answer for Biff since he asked which scandal zeo was referring to. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 10 2016 16:05 Biff The Understudy wrote: The problem and what's actually quite funny mate, is that you can't answer. You guys have been gesticulating for months about corrupt Hillary and when someone tells you "wait a sec, can you develop?" you just have absolutely nothing to say. If you didn't see the last four times LegalLord did it, you're basically gonna have to wait until after the election to google and convince yourself. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7916 Posts
On October 10 2016 16:21 CorsairHero wrote: I was just providing the answer for Biff since he asked which scandal zeo was referring to. Ye. Just went through it. We can summarize in two sentences: Hillary used the wrong email server, which is bad but nothing indicates that she had malicious intentions in doing so, that's rather stupid. Her defense about it was terrible. Is. That. It???? | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On October 10 2016 16:29 Biff The Understudy wrote: Ye. Just went through it. We can summarize in two sentences: Hillary used the wrong email server, which is bad but nothing indicates that she had malicious intentions in doing so, that's rather stupid. Her defense about it was terrible. Is. That. It???? I think that the video of the trial had extremely strong undertones of suspicious activity though. It wouldn't be fair to not point that out. There's definitely a case to be made about her lacking intent, because she knew it was very grey line, and she changed her wording when it was revealed there were 3? classified documents in her private email server. She didn't really delete documents so much as they were automatically deleted as part of hardware changes. She was also careless handling emails because she preferred to use her judgment about whether they were classified or not rather than the C's which weren't common and sometimes didn't make sense to them. She used an email server because she didn't want Republicans being able to pry into her emails (not sure how this works). She used multiple devices but really only her Blackberry because she hated technology and her iPad. She wasn't definitively told that using a private email server is illegal because it isn't (?) and others have used it in the past. Everyone is careless about handling emails and notes. But they were also arguing about precedent and how there's no precedent for her indictment because it's less wrong for politicians, and they're essentially asking the judge to not set the precedent in an essentially 50/50 ruling because she is running for president. It's all a fuzzy gray area, I get that people are angry about it but by the virtue (injustice?) of our justice system it was lacking evidence, especially if you consider how Hillary works in the first place. Intent is really hard to prove. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 10 2016 16:29 Biff The Understudy wrote: Ye. Just went through it. We can summarize in two sentences: Hillary used the wrong email server, which is bad but nothing indicates that she had malicious intentions in doing so, that's rather stupid. Her defense about it was terrible. Is. That. It???? I'm not sure what's worse here, the spin of a rather substantial act of misconduct or the faux outrage at a strawman position. | ||
|
Chris1
44 Posts
Clinton news network | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 10 2016 16:09 Biff The Understudy wrote: Ye, ok. The email thing. That was a big mistake very uncautious. She shouldn't have used the wrong server. Ok. She answered terribly, minimized it. True too. Nobody has ever managed to explain to me what was the criminal intention in using a wrong server (it's just s bit stupid) but nevermind. That's it? I mean really, you guys have been breaking our balls for like 3000 pages over that? Should she have instructed staff to remove classified headers from emails to send to the server? (original FBI investigation) When she said she handed over all her emails, should she instead have said she turned over all but over 17 thousand? Wouldn't a reasonable person call that a lie? Should she have told everyone that she never sent or received emails that were classified at the time they were sent? Should she have deleted all those emails before they had been reviewed in the FBI investigation? Does it mean anything to you when FBI Director Comey said she cleaned them "in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery?" Was it her concussion that made her forget her training on classified servers? (final FBI interview) Are you okay with Comey rewriting a statute only requiring gross negligence (espionage act) to contain an intent provision? When her aide testified she had gone through thirteen (!) different blackberry devices, should she have turned them over to the FBI instead of destroying them with hammers? When she said she "wanted the public to see her emails" isn't that a problem when they were deleted by the thousands three weeks later? Did you believe Clinton when she said she thought the big "C" on the pages was used for alphabetical ordering? If her name wasn't Hillary Clinton, would you excuse another person that had shown this pattern of behavior from not being scandalous or a pattern of lying? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 10 2016 16:37 Blisse wrote: I think that the video of the trial had extremely strong undertones of suspicious activity though. It wouldn't be fair to not point that out. There's definitely a case to be made about her lacking intent, because she knew it was very grey line, and she changed her wording when it was revealed there were 3? classified documents in her private email server. She didn't really delete documents so much as they were automatically deleted as part of hardware changes. She was also careless handling emails because she preferred to use her judgment about whether they were classified or not rather than the C's which weren't common and sometimes didn't make sense to them. She used an email server because she didn't want Republicans being able to pry into her emails (not sure how this works). She used multiple devices but really only her Blackberry because she hated technology and her iPad. She wasn't definitively told that using a private email server is illegal because it isn't (?) and others have used it in the past. Everyone is careless about handling emails and notes. But they were also arguing about precedent and how there's no precedent for her indictment because it's less wrong for politicians, and they're essentially asking the judge to not set the precedent in an essentially 50/50 ruling because she is running for president. It's all a fuzzy gray area, I get that people are angry about it but by the virtue (injustice?) of our justice system it was lacking evidence, especially if you consider how Hillary works in the first place. Intent is really hard to prove. (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to 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, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. Where's Waldo: Find the intent in this provision. It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery. FBI.GOV When you say they happened to be deleted as part of hardware changes, does hardware changes include methods used in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery? | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
On October 10 2016 16:42 Danglars wrote: Should she have instructed staff to remove classified headers from emails to send to the server? (original FBI investigation) When she said she handed over all her emails, should she instead have said she turned over all but over 17 thousand? Wouldn't a reasonable person call that a lie? Should she have told everyone that she never sent or received emails that were classified at the time they were sent? Should she have deleted all those emails before they had been reviewed in the FBI investigation? Does it mean anything to you when FBI Director Comey said she cleaned them "in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery?" Was it her concussion that made her forget her training on classified servers? (final FBI interview) Are you okay with Comey rewriting a statute only requiring gross negligence (espionage act) to contain an intent provision? When her aide testified she had gone through thirteen (!) different blackberry devices, should she have turned them over to the FBI instead of destroying them with hammers? When she said she "wanted the public to see her emails" isn't that a problem when they were deleted by the thousands three weeks later? Did you believe Clinton when she said she thought the big "C" on the pages was used for alphabetical ordering? If her name wasn't Hillary Clinton, would you excuse another person that had shown this pattern of behavior from not being scandalous or a pattern of lying? Facts: (1) It was not a classified server, which is the whole point. (2) She tried her damnedest to keep classified info OFF of the server. Conclusions: (1) Means that this isn't like the guys who have classified info and moves it off of a secure area (Patreaus, USB stick guy). (2) Means she has no intent to distribute classified info where it shouldn't be and actively avoided it (you even cited the 3 emails that has (c) in the body, a minor error, no intent). EDIT: if you don't like the requirement of intent, tough. You need to prove Comey wrong: Comey pointed out that Petraeus not only shared the classified information, but also hid the documents in his attic and then lied to investigators. "So you have obstruction of justice, you have intentional misconduct and a vast quantity of information," Comey said. "He admitted he knew that was the wrong thing to do. That is a perfect illustration of the kind of cases that get prosecuted." He added: "In my mind, it illustrates importantly the distinction to this case." http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/james-comey-hillary-clinton-david-petraeus/ | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On October 10 2016 16:42 Chris1 wrote: Remember: CNN DOES """"SCIENTIFIC"""" POLLS BASED ON """UNBIASED""" FOCUS GROUPS. Clinton news network https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqCIub3SmCI is there a video of that in context? How do we know this isn't just part of the group that agreed with that in the first place and got asked about that as a follow up? Or do we know wether the same was asked the other way around? I can see "what resonated with you [about Clintons argument]" and the next question being "what resonated with you [about Trumps argument]" being a thing. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6299 Posts
On October 10 2016 16:42 Chris1 wrote: Remember: CNN DOES """"SCIENTIFIC"""" POLLS BASED ON """UNBIASED""" FOCUS GROUPS. Clinton news network https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqCIub3SmCI It's not like CNN had any credibility before this though. I still laugh every time someone cites CNN as a source. Moment of the night: | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7916 Posts
On October 10 2016 16:40 LegalLord wrote: I'm not sure what's worse here, the spin of a rather substantial act of misconduct or the faux outrage at a strawman position. Look, I also, sincerely think the email thing is bad. It's a huge mistake, horribly and arguably quite dishonestly handled. It's just not nearly bad enough to make it the n1 issue in that election. And it doesn't make her a corrupt person. And then, the double standard. Because Trump's scandals, such as his foundation engaged in open bribery, a fake university stealing students, etc etc, are infintly worse and nobody seems to think it's a problem. I mean, why don't people realize that saying "Hillary is corrupt, I vote for Trump" is as crazy as saying "I'm thirsty but beer is too strong for me, i'm rather gonna swallow two bottles of wiskey!" But then again, if you want to keep talking qbout emails, feel free. It's just getting old. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On October 10 2016 16:46 Danglars wrote: Where's Waldo: Find the intent in this provision. FBI.GOV When you say they happened to be deleted as part of hardware changes, does hardware changes include methods used in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery? It is likely there is. There's no proof that there is. We can interpret that however we want. But this is the whole point of security. If you've been handling classified information on a device and you're not using the device anymore, you should be destroying the device such that there is no way that you can access any information in the device. I'm not sure what your point is here. Yes, it's a bit different that Hillary ordered these devices destroyed herself instead of handing them in for destruction. No, it's not enough evidence that she was covering up that she sent classified information. That's because there's no proof. There's just the possibility. Dude, I get it, destroying phones like that looks suspicious as fuck, and there was an entire trial about this exact matter about emails where the destruction was pointed out. The whole point is that THIS IS NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE INTENT. You really don't understand clearly enough how criminal law works if you think that what you quoted is enough, because clearly the judge in the video did not think that this was overtly intentional enough. IT IS EXTREMELY HARD TO PROVE INTENT. There is a somewhat reasonable explanation for almost everything that happened with the email scandal. People say x shit and revise them when they realize they were wrong. They don't always say x shit because they are trying to hide something. Secret, extremely careful lawyers like Hillary definitely knows that her exact wording can get her in trouble so she will definitely word things more carefully when she can. It's not a huge stretch to imagine that she words things so she doesn't get in too much trouble and when she's pressured after more information she has to change how she speaks. She's been attacked by Republicans for 20 years during her entire political career. She's not going to be "amazingly cooperative" like you guys want idealize someone in her position would be. Sure this may have gotten someone who wasn't running for president indicted. But like I said before, this was absolutely a 50/50 area that the judge was talking about in the video, and they decided not to set the precedent because she was running for president. Whether you think that's because the judge is corrupt or that the judge decided to lean this way instead of that is up to you. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 10 2016 16:55 Biff The Understudy wrote: Look, I also, sincerely think the email thing is bad. It's a huge mistake, horribly and arguably quite dishonestly handled. It's just not nearly bad enough to make it the n1 issue in that election. And it doesn't make her a corrupt person. And then, the double standard. Because Trump's scandals, such as his foundation engaged in open bribery, a fake university stealing students, etc etc, are infintly worse and nobody seems to think it's a problem. I mean, why don't people realize that saying "Hillary is corrupt, I vote for Trump" is as crazy as saying "I'm thirsty but beer is too strong for me, i'm rather gonna swallow two bottles of wiskey!" But then again, if you want to keep talking qbout emails, feel free. It's just getting old. It's true that it's a big mental leap from "the email situation is bad" to "vote for Trump." As you probably know by now I'm not a Trump supporter myself. But damn, this deliberate downplaying of the issues is just disingenuous as fuck. Acknowledge it for what it is, a really terrible misstep that would get most people fired at the very least, and that would end the presidential campaign of any candidate in any other year. | ||
|
Grettin
42381 Posts
Easily the best moment. lmfao | ||
| ||
And no, breitbart and infowars don't count.
