Of course, and whether or not they are guilty, if she is, she should be prosecuted. Originally Posted by eatfiboSo in "eatfibo's world" ... only "guilty" people are "prosecuted"?
Prosecutor for Petraeus. National director of National Security archive calls it "not a scandal." Top dem of Senate Intelligence committee. Legal expert for security clearance cases.I was too busy to respond to this earlier. You trotted out links to four articles. None of them is more recent than last August. None of them reflect what is known today. We're up to 1300+ classifed emails and counting - some of which are so sensitive that even the Inspector General for the intelligence community lacks the clearance to read them!
I addressed your question. So would you kindly address mine now? Originally Posted by eatfibo
I was too busy to respond to this earlier. You trotted out links to four articles. None of them is more recent than last August. None of them reflect what is known today. We're up to 1300+ classifed emails and counting - some of which are so sensitive that even the Inspector General for the intelligence community lacks the clearance to read them! Originally Posted by lustyladYou point out what has changed since August: The number of pieces of classified information has gone up. That's it. Are they supposed to write another piece that says, "Yup, we still only know that the emails exist, but still know nothing about their contents"?
The USA Today article in your first link is by the woman who prosecuted Gen. Patraeus. Her name is Anne Tompkins. She is a lifelong Democrat and a Clinton donor. Earlier in this thread, you were quick to dismiss the views of former Attorney General Michael Mukasey because you said he is biased – yet you want us to embrace Anne Tompkins as an objective source. You have quite a double standard when it comes to deciding who has credibility. Personally, I want to hear the arguments of everyone qualified to opine on the subject, even if I know they are likely to be sympathetic to one side. Heck, I especially want to hear Hillary's own arguments! Or should I simply dismiss every thing that comes out of her mouth without giving it any consideration because she is obviously biased and partial and desperate to avoid prosecution?I didn't dismiss his views because he was biased. He was trotted out as an unbiased, "non political hack" source, when the reality is that he has an obvious conflict of interest. All I did was point that out.
One day after Anne Tompkins made headlines by claiming the two cases (Patraeus and Clinton) were not comparable, her arguments were eviscerated by Andrew McCarthy, a former US Attorney from New York who convicted the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. I suggest you read his rebuttal carefully. I learned a lot from it. Do you want to know what specific sections of the federal penal code Clinton may have violated? It's there. Do you want to know what kind of evidence the FBI investigators are looking for to prove Hillary's “knowledge and intent”? McCarthy tells you. And keep in mind he wrote all of this 5 months ago, before the deluge of new evidence we have today. Here's the link:He starts off by mischaracterizing her position by claiming she was "arguing that Hillary Clinton is not guilty" when what she really said was (and I quote, emphasis mine) "I can say, based on the known facts, this comparison [to Patraeus] has no merit." She didn't say it was about innocence or guilt, but about the comparison to Patraeus. She didn't even say it had no merit, only that it didn't based on the facts. I'm amazed at how clearly he screwed up her very clear position.
http://global.nationalreview.com/art...ghable-defense
Ms. Tompkins has had nothing to do with the FBI’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s handling of classified information through an unauthorized private e-mail system. She is not privy to the evidence the FBI is gathering — she knows no more about the case than anyone else who reads the papers. To exonerate Clinton, she relies on nothing other than her status as the government lawyer who oversaw the prosecution of David Petraeus.Which is probably why she intelligently said "based on the known facts" and not "I know she is innocent." It is apparent at this point that the author is attacking a strawman.
she is hardly in a position to judge what crimes should be charged as the result of an investigation she has nothing to do with.And, again, sir, she didn't say she there should be no prosecution, only that the facts, as we know them, do not justify comparing it to Patraeus.
But Tompkins elucidates that Petraeus’s journals were not marked “top secret” either.Another mischaracterization. While this is technically true, that they weren't marked, she points out that "These journals contained top secret and even more sensitive “code word” national defense information, including the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities, diplomatic discussions, and quotes and deliberative discussions from National Security Council meetings, including discussions with the president of the United States." We don't know if any of this is true about the Clinton emails. We have no idea what they have determined is classified. We know that what was in his journal was classified and (apparently) obviously so. And so by not marking them, he violated the law.
In any event, we will not be able to conclusively assess Hillary Clinton’s state of knowledge or criminal liability until all the facts have been laid bare.Read that again. Your own source agrees with me. Thanks, BTW.
As for the other three links you provided, the second one (from NPR) came out 10 months ago (when the existence of the private server first became known) and even then was more damaging than helpful for Hillary. The third link from last August quotes fellow Democrat Diane Feinstein saying many “questions have yet to be answered”. And the fourth link, also from last August, carries the headline “Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton THUS FAR”. Only two “experts” are quoted, and the second one pointed out that ordinary government employees who behave like Hillary are disciplined “all the time, in far more nuanced disputes than this”.How many times do I have to say I don't know that she is innocent before people here accept that that is my position? I'm not arguing "She did nothing wrong." I'm arguing (and your last link apparently agrees with me - and with Tompkins on that note) that we just don't have enough facts at this point to know the extent of legal liability, if any.
You may want to read your links/sources more carefully next time so you don't end up shooting yourself in the foot again.Pot, meet kettle.
.....we just don't have enough facts at this point to know the extent of legal liability, if any. Originally Posted by eatfiboWhen you use "we" does it give some special level of "comfort" to deceive yourself into believing that "others" hold your same conclusions? Or do you believe it enhances the "credibility" of your delusions?
You point out what has changed since August: The number of pieces of classified information has gone up. That's it. Are they supposed to write another piece that says, "Yup, we still only know that the emails exist, but still know nothing about their contents"?
I didn't dismiss his views because he was biased. He was trotted out as an unbiased, "non political hack" source, when the reality is that he has an obvious conflict of interest. All I did was point that out.
I even went on to directly criticize the article. But, of course, my direct criticism of the article is ignored while my pointing out that the pedestal he was put on was shaky, at best, was twisted into simply "dismissing" his opinion.
Also, at no point, did I claim that Tompkins as a source completely free from bias. You asked for an expert opinion, I gave one. That's it.
He starts off by mischaracterizing her position by claiming she was "arguing that Hillary Clinton is not guilty" when what she really said was (and I quote, emphasis mine) "I can say, based on the known facts, this comparison [to Patraeus] has no merit." She didn't say it was about innocence or guilt, but about the comparison to Patraeus. She didn't even say it had no merit, only that it didn't based on the facts. I'm amazed at how clearly he screwed up her very clear position.
Which is probably why she intelligently said "based on the known facts" and not "I know she is innocent." It is apparent at this point that the author is attacking a strawman.
And, again, sir, she didn't say she there should be no prosecution, only that the facts, as we know them, do not justify comparing it to Patraeus.
Another mischaracterization. While this is technically true, that they weren't marked, she points out that "These journals contained top secret and even more sensitive “code word” national defense information, including the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities, diplomatic discussions, and quotes and deliberative discussions from National Security Council meetings, including discussions with the president of the United States." We don't know if any of this is true about the Clinton emails. We have no idea what they have determined is classified. We know that what was in his journal was classified and (apparently) obviously so. And so by not marking them, he violated the law.
But the fact that the author does nothing but "eviscerate" a strawman is completely besides the point because, at the end of the article he agrees with me when he says:
Read that again. Your own source agrees with me. Thanks, BTW.
How many times do I have to say I don't know that she is innocent before people here accept that that is my position? I'm not arguing "She did nothing wrong." I'm arguing (and your last link apparently agrees with me - and with Tompkins on that note) that we just don't have enough facts at this point to know the extent of legal liability, if any.
Pot, meet kettle. Originally Posted by eatfibo
on your marks, get set, GO!
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
The future of the Democratic Party was two angry old leftists screaming at each other for two hours to decide who hates capitalism more.
With the MSNBC and the Democratic Party's logos on a red background, the stage was set for a redder than red debate. Red was everywhere, reflected in the thick glasses of Bernie Sanders and in the garish red lipstick around Hillary Clinton's orifice of lies, and in their clamorous rants about Wall Street and the evils of capitalism that could have come from a back alley Communist pamphleteer in the 50s.
Bernie Sanders promised to end “a rigged economy” with Socialism, which is the very definition of a rigged economy. Both candidates showed their Socialist bona fides by rattling off the names of the corporations they hated the most. Bernie Sanders cheered normalizing relations with Cuba, ridiculing the idea that being Communist is objectionable. But he did express some concerns about the nuclear weapons being held by his fellow Socialists in the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea.
NBC’s Chuck Todd, who was born for Archie Bunker to call him “Meathead”, and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, whose giant fake eyelashes made it impossible for her to wear her trademark glasses, moderated a debate that had no reason for existing because none of the participants had developed a new idea since the 1970s (and in Bernie Sander’ case, possibly even the 1870s) and were just yelling the same things that they had yelled at all the previous debates, only louder, as if we hadn’t heard them the first time. The MSNBC audience applauded every line as if it were the only job they were qualified for.
Except maybe teaching gender justice or reviewing organic cruelty-free smoothie places on Yelp.
Meanwhile Bernie Sanders picked his ear and Hillary Clinton nodded frantically during every question as if she were a bobblehead doll that had come to life and wanted to go right from plastic to president.
Anyone who had the misfortune to sit, stand or sleep through the previous Democratic debates kept hearing the same tired lines both candidates have been repeating for months; rigged economy, Donald Trump's kids, the middle class bailed out Wall Street, a progressive is someone who gets thing done, political revolution, not radical ideas, not only did I vote against the bill and “Moozlimb” countries.
Maybe it’s too much to expect two career leftists with a combined total age of 142 to come up with any new ideas, but would it really have killed Bernie and Hillary to come up with some new lines?
Instead the future of the Democratic Party recited their memorized lines and rants from the previous debates. It got so bad that in response to a question about Afghanistan, Bernie Sanders reeled off the same exact rant about ISIS, Muslim souls and the King of Jordan that he had recited in the last debate until Chuck Todd gave up on the senile Socialist as a hopeless case and switched to Hillary Clinton.
The only thing that Bernie Sanders appeared to know about foreign policy was that Hillary Clinton had voted for the Iraq War twelve years ago and he hadn’t. That is the only thing he will ever know.
Don’t ask Bernie Sanders to find Afghanistan, Iran or Ukraine on a map. But wake him up in the middle of the night and he’ll tell you that he voted against the Iraq War and that we need to raise taxes.
But what Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders lacked in the way of ideas, they more than made up for in volume. Hillary Clinton screamed, "I can get things done" as if she were pitching a product on an infomercial. Bernie Sanders ran his own telethon, stumbling over words as he boasted how much moolah he had taken in, “a million people” and “27 bucks a piece”.
Eat your heart out, Wall Street. Bernie is better at suckering small-time investors than you are.
Hillary Clinton compensated for her complete lack of likability by falling back on playing the victim. She accused Bernie Sanders of ignoring feminism, black people and gay rights. She sputtered that, “Senator Sanders is the only one who would describe me, a woman running to be president, as exemplifying the establishment.” Somehow a fabulously wealthy woman who is backed by the entire Democratic political establishment isn’t the “establishment” because of her gender.
Hillary Clinton had tried to use 9/11 as a shield for her Wall Street donations and now she switched to using Obama's Wall Street donations as her human shield. Accusing her of being bought by special interests was engaging in an “artful smear”, she indignantly insisted. Like Picasso or Jackson Pollock.
It was neither artful, nor a smear though. It was just common sense that no one was giving Hillary Clinton money because of 9/11. And a genuinely honest opponent would have made that case.
But when Hillary Clinton dared Bernie Sanders to accuse her of being bought off by special interests, the courageous political revolutionary turned tail and fled. Instead of confronting her with the facts, he began mewling something about Republicans and the Koch Brothers. Just as with the emails, Bernie Sanders backed off his criticism and showed that he didn’t have the spine to stand up to Hillary Clinton.
Under all the “authenticity”, Bernie Sanders is just as fake as Hillary. He paradoxically insists that he wants a political revolution, but that his ideas are not radical. After all his rants about the SuperPAC devil, he admitted that he had contemplated setting up his own SuperPAC.
Between Hillary Clinton’s painfully tight smiles and Bernie Sanders checking his watch, this debate was just another infomercial for a fake election between two candidates who voted the same way 93 percent of the time. All that was left was the inane rhetoric and memorized applause lines.
“A progressive is someone who makes progress,” Hillary Clinton blathered. No one asked her what progress she had ever made. Besides the progress from defending a 12-year-old girl’s rapist in Arkansas to defending her rapist husband in the White House.
“I want to see major changes in the Democratic Party,” Bernie Sanders demanded. He could just rename it the Communist Party.
“I have a record,” Hillary Clinton boasted. But that’s really up to the FBI. She promised the country half-a-billion solar panels, which it needs about as much as it needs another Clinton in the White House.
There was no truth in the New Hampshire Democratic debate, but it was child’s play to spot the three biggest lies.
“I say what I believe,” Hillary Clinton said. And somehow, no one laughed.
“I have been moved by my heart,” Hillary Clinton said in her closing statement. “I will bring my heart with me.” Medical records have already revealed that Hillary Clinton has no heart.
“I love this country,” Bernie Sanders said. And for once, someone else beat Hillary in a lying contest.
You point out what has changed since August: The number of pieces of classified information has gone up. That's it. Are they supposed to write another piece that says, "Yup, we still only know that the emails exist, but still know nothing about their contents"? Originally Posted by eatfiboYou are fucking hopeless! Not only has the number of documents gone up since August – but the level of their classifications has gone way up as well! If someone tells you there are 22 documents so sensitive that the Inspector General for the intelligence community cannot see them, that tells you a helluva lot about their contents! It means they must contain info on sources and methods that - if exposed - would put people's lives at risk and/or seriously jeopardize our national security! You seem like a smart person. So why in God's name would you even TRY to argue that Hillary Clinton - with her Wellesley/Yale education and decades-long career in government and written memoirs bragging about her familiarity with security protocols - couldn't figure out at a glance how sensitive these documents were unless someone tagged them with a big fucking neon sign flashing “TOP SECRET – HANDLE WITH CARE”? We're talking about the Secretary of State, for crying out loud! The mere suggestion that she didn't know they were classified is so laughable that it strains the credulity of everyone on this board - liberal or conservative! Everyone except you, that is.
The mere suggestion that she didn't know they were classified is so laughable that it strains the credulity of everyone on this board - liberal or conservative! Everyone except you, that is. Originally Posted by lustyladOR.....
When you use "we" does it give some special level of "comfort" to deceive yourself into believing that "others" hold your same conclusions? Or do you believe it enhances the "credibility" of your delusions? Originally Posted by LexusLoverThe other little trick he employs is when he says "so and so seems to agree with me". He tried to pull that with me and LL. In no way were we agreeing with him.
The other little trick he employs is when he says "so and so seems to agree with me". He tried to pull that with me and LL. In no way were we agreeing with him. Originally Posted by bambinoOut of WTF's "play book"!
that tells you a helluva lot about their contents! Originally Posted by lustyladNo it doesn't. It tells you about their classification. That's it. Again, I worked with classification. The company would sometimes wholesale classify a document as "secret" even when the majority of the document was something that was public knowledge. It was viewed as safer to over classify so there wasn't a "whoops! That should have been classified" moment and then have to deal with the following investigation and new asshole-ripping.
It means they must contain info on sources and methods that - if exposed - would put people's lives at risk and/or seriously jeopardize our national security!Again, you are wrong. The name of the program might be considered classified. Even if that name is widely circulated in the press.
You seem like a smart person. So why in God's name would you even TRY to argue that Hillary Clinton ... couldn't figure out at a glance how sensitive these documents wereBecause I haven't see what was classified. I'm a smart person, with a fairly intimate knowledge of how things get classified and, by most accounts, the over-classification problem in the government has gotten even worse since I've moved on. Rushing to judgement about something you know next to nothing about is not the "smart" thing to do. If that is what you want me to do, it ain't happening. Sorry. If you have good evidence to support your position, I would love to hear it. But it appears have to assume that she knew it was classified without seeing what was classified (or an assessment by someone who has actually seen all of the evidence).
The mere suggestion that she didn't know they were classified is so laughable that it strains the credulity of everyone on this board - liberal or conservative!Without knowing what was determined to be classified, and whether or not it was classified at the time, it is "laughable" to assume that she had to know.
Everyone except you, that is.I don't follow the herd simply because it is going somewhere. I like to think for myself because I've watched the herd rush towards judgement way too quickly.
Yeah, everything has changed since last AugustNo, not "everything." The number of redactions has gone up, and the known level of classification has gone up. That's it. The crux of the matter has remained the same: did she, or should she have, known that any particular piece of material passing through her server was classified. Based on the facts as we know them, the answer to that question is still "no," no matter how much you want it to be "yes."
Right now I don't have the time or patience to argue with you tit for tat over the rest of your overly lengthy post. Perhaps later, but what's the point? You seem impervious to normal logic or reasoning.You posted a link that you claimed "eviscerated" one of the articles I linked. I pointed out that it was attacking a strawman. The irony being that it came to the same conclusion as I have. And I will repeat it again for everyone here to read:
In any event, we will not be able to conclusively assess Hillary Clinton’s state of knowledge or criminal liability until all the facts have been laid bare.If I am being "impervious to logic" so is the author of the piece you linked to that you mistakenly believed supported [/i]your[/i] position.