IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags e-mail scandals , Eric Hothem , hillary clinton , politics scandals

Closed Thread
Old 5th March 2015, 06:58 AM   #81
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 15,621
It's unacceptable when republicans try to game the system. It's unacceptable when democrats try to game the system.

It's a bit depressing to see fellow lefties defend Clinton's sketchy actions in such a knee jerk fashion.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 07:24 AM   #82
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Do I understand you correctly that so long as Hillary is not an active criminal, there is not an issue?

Ok.

Wait, if Hillary is not a(n active?) criminal, what's the issue supposed to be?
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 07:37 AM   #83
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 49,539
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
If you believe that Hillary Clinton violated the law, it would appear there are a whole bunch of other people who did so as well. The fact that these people have not been charged or convicted of law-breaking would indicate the behavior was not illegal at the time they engaged in it.
No. It indicates that it's not criminal. You can violate the law without committing a crime. But I didn't say she committed a crime.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 07:38 AM   #84
Tolls
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 5,229
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
It's unacceptable when republicans try to game the system. It's unacceptable when democrats try to game the system.

It's a bit depressing to see fellow lefties defend Clinton's sketchy actions in such a knee jerk fashion.
Was she unique?
Did her predecessors do it?
(I have no idea at all).

She seems to be following the rules, from my limited reading on this...not that those rules are necessarily correct.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 07:52 AM   #85
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
Was she unique?
Did her predecessors do it?
(I have no idea at all).

She seems to be following the rules, from my limited reading on this...not that those rules are necessarily correct.
It is unknown if she's following the rules. The rules say that she must archive all important business-related documents. Since she was Secretary of State, I think all of her business-related documents were important, by definition. So if there is any evidence that any are missing, then I would argue that she broke the law. Of course, we don't know yet if any are missing. After two years of investigations into the Benghazi incident, we only just found out that she had a private email account through which she conducted all official business, so I think there is reason to be skeptical that she has been forthcoming.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 08:00 AM   #86
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,761
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
Could you please specify the law you believe she violated?
44 U.S. Code § 3101 to 3105.

It's not the using of personal emails. That is the red herring in this mess. It's the not turning them over until 2 years after she left office.

3101:
The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.

Keeping all of the emails where she and only she had access to them does not furnish the information necessary to protect the government or the persons directly affected. See the negative responses to FOIA requests that have to be amended because she finally turned over the information.

Up until about 2 months ago, as far as the government knew, those documents did not exist. That is not, by spirit or letter, making or preserving records designed to furnish information. It's exactly the opposite.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 08:28 AM   #87
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,276
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
It is unknown if she's following the rules. The rules say that she must archive all important business-related documents. Since she was Secretary of State, I think all of her business-related documents were important, by definition. So if there is any evidence that any are missing, then I would argue that she broke the law.
Firstly, broke the rules != broke the law. Agreed ?

Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Of course, we don't know yet if any are missing. After two years of investigations into the Benghazi incident, we only just found out that she had a private email account through which she conducted all official business, so I think there is reason to be skeptical that she has been forthcoming.
Really - you mean all those people she emailed during her entire tenure as secratary of state from @clintonemails ... and we just now realized she was using .gov addresss ?

No one realized it 2 years ago when “Guccifer” hacked blumenthals emails ?

How about this two year old piece from ap ?

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/email...remain-mystery
WASHINGTON (AP) — Some of President Barack Obama's political appointees are using secret government email accounts to conduct official business, The Associated Press found, a practice that complicates agencies' legal responsibilities to find and turn over emails under public records requests and congressional inquiries.

White House spokesman Jay Carney on Tuesday acknowledged the practice and said it made eminent sense for Cabinet secretaries and other high-profile officials to have what he called alternative email accounts that wouldn't fill with unwanted messages. Carney said all their email accounts, public and otherwise, were subject to congressional oversight and requests by citizens under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.

"There's nothing secret," Carney said.


Her email usage can't possibly be news to anyone who interacted with Secretary of state, can it ?
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 08:34 AM   #88
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,999
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You can violate the law without committing a crime.

I didn't ask whether she committed a crime.

You said she violated the law. I asked you to specify which law you think she violated. You still haven't done so.
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 08:37 AM   #89
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 08:41 AM   #90
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 23,449
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
It's unacceptable when republicans try to game the system. It's unacceptable when democrats try to game the system.

It's a bit depressing to see fellow lefties defend Clinton's sketchy actions in such a knee jerk fashion.
Thanks for saying that. I agree.

Look in the middle of this thread somewhere, and see where folks with gov't experience have commented. ".gov" probably sucks as a server, and anyone with savvy would probably try to avoid using it if they could.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 08:50 AM   #91
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,999
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
44 U.S. Code § 3101 to 3105.

Thank you. Now we're getting somewhere. You believe it is the Presidential Records Act of 1978 which she violated, specifically sections 3101, 3102, 3103, 3104 and 3105 of chapter 31.

How, specifically, did she violate those 5 sections?

(I assume you believe she violated all 5, since you cited 5 of the 7 sections to that chapter. If you only believe she violated 3101 -- the only one you quoted, and one which does not appear to contain the offense you then referred to -- there was no need to mention 3102, 3103, 3104 and 3105 in your comment.)

Quote:
3101. Records management by agency heads; general duties

The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.

Are you saying that during the time she was Secretary of State the agency did not make and preserve records?

Quote:
3102. Establishment of program of management

The head of each Federal agency shall establish and maintain an active, continuing program for the economical and efficient management of the records of the agency. The program, among other things, shall provide for

(1) effective controls over the creation and over the maintenance and use of records in the conduct of current business;

(2) cooperation with the Archivist in applying standards, procedures, and techniques designed to improve the management of records, promote the maintenance and security of records deemed appropriate for preservation, and facilitate the segregation and disposal of records of temporary value; and

(3) compliance with sections 2101-2117, 2501-2507, 2901-2909, and 3101-3107, of this title and the regulations issued under them.

Are you saying that there was not an active and continuing program for managing the records? That Hillary did not cooperate with the archivist? Or something else (perhaps having to do with those other sections referred to)?

Quote:
3103. Transfer of records to records centers

When the head of a Federal agency determines that such action may affect substantial economies or increased operating efficiency, the head of such agency shall provide for the transfer of records to a records center maintained and operated by the Archivist, or, when approved by the Archivist, to a center maintained and operated by the head of the Federal agency.

Do you think she violated this section while she was in office? If so, in what way?

Quote:
3104. Certifications and determinations on transferred records

An official of the Government who is authorized to certify to facts on the basis of records in such official’s custody, may certify to facts on the basis of records that have been transferred by such official or such official’s predecessors to the Archivist, and may authorize the Archivist to certify to facts and to make administrative determinations on the basis of records transferred to the Archivist, notwithstanding any other law.

Do you think she violated this section while she was in office? If so, in what way?

Quote:
3105. Safeguards

The head of each Federal agency shall establish safeguards against the removal or loss of records the head of such agency determines to be necessary and required by regulations of the Archivist. Safeguards shall include making it known to officials and employees of the agency--

(1) that records in the custody of the agency are not to be alienated or destroyed except in accordance with sections 3301-3314 of this title, and

(2) the penalties provided by law for the unlawful removal or destruction of records.

Do you think she violated this section while she was in office? If so, in what way?
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 08:54 AM   #92
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
In an appalling act of cynicism, Hillary Clinton requested that the State Department release the emails that she and her legal team culled through and gave to them less than two months ago. What about the six years of FOIA requests, what about the subpoenas, what about the Court orders that you caused State to violate Hillary?

What about the other documents that your phalanx of lawyers said you didn't have to turn over?

Vote Hillary 2016, It is Not Clear that She is an Active Felon!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 09:03 AM   #94
Augustine
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 995
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post
Have you ever used a .gov service of any kind? They suck, completely and totally. If I wanted to keep stuff private no way I'd use a system that requires you to click windows security bypasses to ignore certificate mismatches each and every single time in order to use a system chocked with featurebloat only a bureaucracy could invent.

We used military issued email in the National Guard but with all the hassles (including a requirement to change password every 150 days, requiring 2 uppers two lowers two numbers two symbols and two of whatever you want for a total of ten characters, unique from the last ten passwords you used and don't you dare forget it or your account will be locked) and a cumbersome interface totally unlike anything else on earth except maybe one of the old walled-garden proto internet engines. Nearly all the soldiers I supervised used commercial email. We had to update our contact info every freaking month because the unit couldn't trust soldiers to actually have access to a PC with a CAC reader in order to reset passwords regularly. I had a CAC reader thrust into my hand one month by a senior NCO so I'd go away. Didn't sign for it or anything. Then I had to spend the rest of drill attempting to install the "middleware" to get it working. Ended up having to go to one soldier's house between drills to help him get his CAC working so we could reset his password so he could download the stupid monthly unit newsletter to know what drill requirements were upcoming.

Of all the things to dislike Hillary for (and I'm sure our lists would have at least a few points of overlap) using a private email address on a server she controlled is the least important.
I hardly think the email usage of a junior enlisted/junior NCO in the National Guard and the email usage of the Secretary of State of the United States are comparable. The email content you are handling and your attractiveness as a hacking target are insignificant compared to the Secretary of State. Or did you send USRs through personal email? Ever?
Augustine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 09:13 AM   #95
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 49,539
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
I didn't ask whether she committed a crime.
But you asked why various other people who may have done something similar were not prosecuted, which requires that it be a crime, since you can't prosecute someone for violating the law if that violation is not a crime. You may not have asked if it was a crime, but your argument very much assumed that I claimed it was.

Quote:
You said she violated the law. I asked you to specify which law you think she violated. You still haven't done so.
You're right, *I* didn't. But Leftus did.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 09:27 AM   #96
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,999
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You're right, *I* didn't. But Leftus did.

In my first post I asked you what law you believed Hillary Clinton had violated:

Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
Could you please specify the law you believe she violated?

The law you likely have in mind is the Presidential Records Act, which was enacted in 1978.

That is indeed the law which Leftus believes Hillary violated. It sounds like you are confirming that the Presidential Records Act is the law you had in mind as well, although you still haven't clearly said so.

Is that the law you believe Hillary Clinton violated? If so, could you please specify in what way you believe she violated it?

As a help to you in answering the question, I have quoted all 5 sections Leftus referred to. Is it one of these, or some other section? If it's one of these, which one(s) and in what way(s)?
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 10:01 AM   #97
Donal
Illuminator
 
Donal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,380
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
I can absolutely see how a Republican would, as that is their innate position when it comes to democrats. Why assume innocence when it's so much easier to be confident in tampering?
Given the revelations of the last...forever, do any government officials really get the benefit of the doubt?
Donal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 10:05 AM   #98
Donal
Illuminator
 
Donal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,380
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
*shrug* It's an inevitability. All she has to do is announce it and it's curtains for any Republican that tries. I don't even need to worry about it, she's a shoe in.
Said every Hillary fan for the last 20 years.
Donal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 10:09 AM   #99
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 23,449
To be fair, some of them said "shoo-in."
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 10:15 AM   #100
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by Augustine View Post
I hardly think the email usage of a junior enlisted/junior NCO in the National Guard and the email usage of the Secretary of State of the United States are comparable. The email content you are handling and your attractiveness as a hacking target are insignificant compared to the Secretary of State. Or did you send USRs through personal email? Ever?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...256_story.html
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 10:19 AM   #101
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
To be fair, some of them said "shoo-in."
Some of them also said she was a "loch."
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 10:24 AM   #102
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Tony, it would be nice if you excerpted a part of the article you're linking to, or at least described it. That way, we can decide whether it's worth the risk of clicking on it.

As for the point, which I suppose is that even government servers are not free from hacking risks, I doubt that very many security experts would consider Hillary's setup to be more secure than using the government servers, or even, as secure, despite the problems the government has had with security breaches. At least the government found out about the breaches (and now we know about them). Perhaps Hillary's security was breached and even she doesn't know about it.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 10:29 AM   #103
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Tony, it would be nice if you excerpted a part of the article you're linking to, or at least described it. That way, we can decide whether it's worth the risk of clicking on it.

As for the point, which I suppose is that even government servers are not free from hacking risks, I doubt that very many security experts would consider Hillary's setup to be more secure than using the government servers, or even, as secure, despite the problems the government has had with security breaches. At least the government found out about the breaches (and now we know about them). Perhaps Hillary's security was breached and even she doesn't know about it.
we know that people she corresponded with had their security breached.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 10:34 AM   #104
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Tony, it would be nice if you excerpted a part of the article you're linking to, or at least described it. That way, we can decide whether it's worth the risk of clicking on it.

As for the point, which I suppose is that even government servers are not free from hacking risks, I doubt that very many security experts would consider Hillary's setup to be more secure than using the government servers, or even, as secure, despite the problems the government has had with security breaches. At least the government found out about the breaches (and now we know about them). Perhaps Hillary's security was breached and even she doesn't know about it.
It is laughable to complain about hacking concerns regard Hillary's email when State department email has actually been hacked in reality. State.gov is a huge target, while nobody even heard of clintonemails, which she didn't even use to transmit classified information.

I guarantee none of you people would give two craps if it was one of those Republican jokers running for President that used personal email for business. You're just desperate as you can see the writing on the wall that Hillary Clinton is likely to be elected President and are willing to latch on to anything that might prevent that.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 10:39 AM   #105
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
I guarantee none of you people would give two craps if it was one of those Republican jokers running for President that used personal email for business.
Well, you have made it abundantly clear that you don't give two craps that Hillary held every one of her official emails on her personal server for over six years thereby causing State to violate FOIA, Court Orders, and Subpoenas.

And I suspect you will continue to make that point again and again.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 10:42 AM   #106
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Well, you have made it abundantly clear that you don't give two craps that Hillary held every one of her official emails on her personal server for over six years thereby causing State to violate FOIA, Court Orders, and Subpoenas.

And I suspect you will continue to make that point again and again.
Says you.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 10:43 AM   #107
Augustine
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 995
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
It is laughable to complain about hacking concerns regard Hillary's email when State department email has actually been hacked in reality. State.gov is a huge target, while nobody even heard of clintonemails, which she didn't even use to transmit classified information.

I guarantee none of you people would give two craps if it was one of those Republican jokers running for President that used personal email for business. You're just desperate as you can see the writing on the wall that Hillary Clinton is likely to be elected President and are willing to latch on to anything that might prevent that.
How do you know this? Assertions of her, her spokesman, or Democratic politicians? Who would be able to verify this independently without using information provided solely by Hillary, Inc.?
I would be interested in your definitions of two ideas:
Government Transparency
Skeptic
Augustine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 10:46 AM   #108
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by Augustine View Post
How do you know this? Assertions of her, her spokesman, or Democratic politicians? Who would be able to verify this independently without using information provided solely by Hillary, Inc.?
I would be interested in your definitions of two ideas:
Government Transparency
Skeptic

According to the State Department.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 10:48 AM   #109
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Says you.
solid retort.

Actually says the plaintiffs in the cases, and the Justice Department when they informed a Court that they had to supplement prior disclosures in one case.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 10:50 AM   #110
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
solid retort.

Actually says the plaintiffs in the cases, and the Justice Department when they informed a Court that they had to supplement prior disclosures in one case.

Well if the plaintiffs says so it must be true!
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 10:53 AM   #111
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Well if the plaintiffs says so it must be true!
Now you seem to be moving the goalposts. You also ignored the part about the Justice Department.

Hmmmm....
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 10:57 AM   #112
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Now you seem to be moving the goalposts.
Ooh, you really got me there. Instead just you saying it, it is you and some plaintiffs. Must be true now.

Quote:
You also ignored the part about the Justice Department.

Hmmmm....
Even if what you describe about the Justice Department is accurate, they didn't actually say that Hillary caused "State to violate FOIA, Court Orders, and Subpoenas."
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 11:04 AM   #113
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Ooh, you really got me there. Instead just you saying it, it is you and some plaintiffs. Must be true now.

Even if what you describe about the Justice Department is accurate, they didn't actually say that Hillary caused "State to violate FOIA, Court Orders, and Subpoenas."
Yes, I already I pointed out that you have moved the goalposts. From "says you" to well whatever the point of your argument from incredulity is.

Will the plaintiffs file motions for sanctions? of course.

Will the government be forced to supplement previous disclosures? of course.

Will the government be further sanctioned?

Of course. Thanks Hillary.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 11:06 AM   #114
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Yes, I already I pointed out that you have moved the goalposts. From "says you" to well whatever the point of your argument from incredulity is.

Will the plaintiffs file motions for sanctions? of course.

Will the government be forced to supplement previous disclosures? of course.

Will the government be further sanctioned?

Of course. Thanks Hillary.
Says you.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 11:07 AM   #115
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Says you.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 11:09 AM   #116
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Given how badly you're hoping for Benghazi to finally blow up in Hillary/Obama's face, you have no credibility.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 11:12 AM   #117
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,276
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
44 U.S. Code § 3101 to 3105.

It's not the using of personal emails. That is the red herring in this mess. It's the not turning them over until 2 years after she left office.

3101:
The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.

Keeping all of the emails where she and only she had access to them does not furnish the information necessary to protect the government or the persons directly affected. See the negative responses to FOIA requests that have to be amended because she finally turned over the information.
Links up-thread to experts disagree with your assessment of lawbreaking.

Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Up until about 2 months ago, as far as the government knew, those documents did not exist. That is not, by spirit or letter, making or preserving records designed to furnish information. It's exactly the opposite.
That can't possibly be true that "the government" didn't know what email address HRC was sending email from, can it ?

Did no one ever look at the "reply-to" in the header ? Or send her an email ???
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 11:17 AM   #118
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,553
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Hillary held every one of her official emails on her personal server for over six years thereby causing State to violate FOIA, Court Orders, and Subpoenas
Evidence?
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 11:46 AM   #119
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,999
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
Was she unique?
Did her predecessors do it?
(I have no idea at all).

She seems to be following the rules, from my limited reading on this...

Good questions, and ones I'm also interested in learning the answers to.

My understanding so far is that she was not unique in this, and that her actions were not significantly different from those of numerous other government officials including her predecessors as Secretary of State. But this is not something I am very knowledgeable on, so I'm interested in reading factual contributions to this discussion by folks who do know what they're talking about.

One important correction to your post, though. You wrote that she seemed to be following the rules. I would amend that to say that she seemed to be following the rules as they existed at the time she was in office.

Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
...not that those rules are necessarily correct.

I strongly feel those rules were not correct.

When Karl Rove and others were found to be using private e-mail accounts and deleting important e-mails strong action should have been taken.
Not surprisingly, the Bush administration chose not to do so.

The Obama administration had several options when they took power for addressing this problem. One would have been to aggressively investigate the past abuses of the records system and to bring charges if it could be found that the abuses were for the purpose of concealing improper activities. Such an investigation, even if no charges could be brought, would have sent a strong message to officials in the Obama administration not to engage in actions either which were designed to conceal improper activites or which could give the appearance of being designed to conceal such activities.

For better or worse, Obama decided not to aggressively investigate the many abuses which appear to have occurred during the Bush years. Instead the approach taken regarding records-keeping was to amend the law in 2014 to close the loopholes which permitted the abuses. It is no longer legal to engage in the kind of record-keeping which was done during the Bush administration and continued to be done during the first 5 years of the Obama administration.

But if it was legal when Colin Powell, Chuck Hagel, Karl Rove and others were doing it, then I see little point in singling out and scape-goating Hillary Clinton. There are important problems facing the US and the world; we really don't have time or money to waste playing partisan political games like this, even if those who lack constructive programs might prefer to do so.

Last edited by Nova Land; 5th March 2015 at 11:49 AM.
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2015, 11:53 AM   #120
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Evidence?
Certainly, just scraping the tip of the iceberg:

FOIA

FOIA and Orders

subpoenas
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:50 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.