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, 04:55 PM   #161
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,749
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
Are you saying that during the time she was Secretary of State the agency did not make and preserve records?
You stopped reading the law early. It's not just keeping records but making them available. It's the latter part she did not do. I'm not willing to give any government official two years after they leave office to make good something they should have been doing daily.

Her emails were in possession of Hillary Clinton and not the US Government. By not turning those records over to the US Government she was in violation of those sections every day she was in office and the two years after until she turned them in. The part she failed was the latter part of 3101 where it states "... and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government..."

In doing so, the government was not able to fully comply with the FOIA act put forward to them. Again, to the government they never existed. And they would have never existed until someone in the National Archives asked for them. By keeping them away from the Government and the people of the United States, she was in violation of the law as she had a proactive duty to provide them.

Since her system did not satisfy the requirements of 3101 that the records be available to the government she automatically failed 3102. By keeping the records for years after she left office and never once providing the records while in office she failed 3103 and 3104. And by playing keep-away from the archivist, there is no way she could meet the requirements of 3105.

Now, assuming that she kept perfect records, would be so kind as to explain why you think that her keeping the records on her servers and her servers alone meets the standard being "... 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."

And if it did, why did the government respond to a number of FOIA requests that the information they are now providing from her emails didn't exist at that time while still meeting the requirements quoted above. Either her system furnished the records an the Government lied about not being available or they weren't available because her system was not designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal rights (FOIA) of persons directly affected by the agency's activities.
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, 05:12 PM   #162
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,749
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
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 ???
The problem wasn't the use of a private email. The problem was not making them available to the archives.
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, 06:32 PM   #163
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 897
I haven't read the relevant laws/regulations, so I don't know if Hillary broke any of them. But if they're written in such a way that someone working for the government can keep private control of work emails, and only needs to hand them over the government when the government asks, then they really need to be fixed.
__________________
The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!
Matthew Cline 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, 06:32 PM   #164
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,276
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
The problem wasn't the use of a private email. The problem was not making them available to the archives.
From page 2 of this thread:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...l_tell_us.html

Update, March 4: And sure enough, the New York Times reports, when investigators asked for emails, the State Department didn’t turn over everything because officials there didn’t know about Clinton’s private accounts.

I think the question is still open about when and what was "made available".

I am still leaning towards the thought that the letter of the law was followed, but not the spirit.

I still have a hard time understanding how through all the Benghazi hearings there was no outcry about the lack of emails from clintonemails.com ?
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, 06:35 PM   #165
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
It seems that Eric Hoteham is Eric Hothem, Hilary's bag man for the pay off to Bill's brother Roger for the scandal over the clemency decisions, AND her point person for the dispute regarding the furniture the Clinton's took out of the White House when they left.

Ok.....

wow
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, 07:56 PM   #166
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
State Department reports that it will take several months to review the documents, while Gowdy is looking for the documents on an expedited basis.

Will this be the first time in history that a major candidate's campaign will be interrupted to explain just what the hell she was thinking in subpoenaed testimony before Congress?

Probably not, I'd be stunned if she runs.

O'Malley 2016. Book it
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, 08:00 PM   #167
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Actually, 16.5, would you like to have an avatar bet on whether Hillary will run? I mean you are so sure she won't...
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, 08:02 PM   #168
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Will you admit that you were delusional when you are proven wrong?
Of course not. I know that Hilary is a sociopath and megalomaniac.

For Christ sakes, she set up a garbage private server while at the same time threatening her lower level employees regarding their use of private emails.

She has been wildly out of touch for 30 years. I'd be surprised if she ran, at the same time I would not be surprised that she was delusional.

Last edited by The Big Dog; 5th March 2015 at 08:04 PM.
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, 08:36 PM   #169
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Here is an update from the New York Times. Note that Hilary sent a squad of attorneys to NEGOTIATE with State Department representatives to obtain access to official State Department records that she was improperly storing on her personal email server.

Her conduct is as appalling as her contempt for governmental transparency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/us...ease.html?_r=0

And then she claims to want the documents released? Wow, what sneering contempt.

She is toast.
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, 08:43 PM   #170
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
any technical types (and I know we have our fair share) had a chance to vet the articles I posted above about the lack of security in Hillary's homebrew server system?
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, 08:46 PM   #171
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
any technical types (and I know we have our fair share) had a chance to vet the articles I posted above about the lack of security in Hillary's homebrew server system?
Compare and contrast to the lack of security at state.gov which we know for a fact has been hacked.
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, 08:54 PM   #172
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Is it your intention to keep pushing the limits? You need to tone it down. Avid readers know I'm no fan of the constant witch hunting about Hillary, but if you intend on sticking around, tone it down.
Personally I don't want to see you go.
Witch hunt? Did you read the New York times article about her lawyers "negotiating" with the state department about what state department documents she was willing to turn over?

If it was a witch hunt, the lawyers should have immediately told Congress and let them use their contempt power.

Hillary's contempt for transparancy is laid bare. She is toast.
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, 09:26 PM   #173
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 10,004
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
any technical types (and I know we have our fair share) had a chance to vet the articles I posted above about the lack of security in Hillary's homebrew server system?
I gave a full analysis on what you had stated and you completely ignored it. I mean, I can give you the same analysis again, but what's the point if you're just going to ignore it?

This implication that government systems are "way more secure" and referring to servers in a house as "homebrew systems" is completely ridiculous. Security on anything is as good as the time you put into it. If she had a good IT guy then they were just as secure as they would be anywhere else. If the server is rather unknown than the likeliness that she would get hacked would be massively lower than the governments. As previously stated the governments servers are under constant threat by legitimate hackers with high-level skills. Just landing on her email server would be extremely random and even more unlikely.

I have a feeling this will be followed by an appeal to authority by the Gawker article you posted before, which again was just that guys opinion. He had no evidence, none at all, that her servers were threatened, hacked, or had any form of security breach at all. Just a bunch of "what if" style complaints.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 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, 09:33 PM   #174
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
I gave a full analysis on what you had stated and you completely ignored it. I mean, I can give you the same analysis again, but what's the point if you're just going to ignore it?

This implication that government systems are "way more secure" and referring to servers in a house as "homebrew systems" is completely ridiculous. Security on anything is as good as the time you put into it. If she had a good IT guy then they were just as secure as they would be anywhere else. If the server is rather unknown than the likeliness that she would get hacked would be massively lower than the governments. As previously stated the governments servers are under constant threat by legitimate hackers with high-level skills. Just landing on her email server would be extremely random and even more unlikely.

I have a feeling this will be followed by an appeal to authority by the Gawker article you posted before, which again was just that guys opinion. He had no evidence, none at all, that her servers were threatened, hacked, or had any form of security breach at all. Just a bunch of "what if" style complaints.
Well that and the half of dozen security experts he quoted. Plus the other post that showed the certificates were compromised. Plus the facts that clintonemail.com was known for a long time before 2013. Plus the fact that Clinton herself issued a directive explicitly prohibiting the use of personal emails due to their lack of security.

But hey, as you point out, appeal to authority. Silly computer experts.

I understand you have a minecraft server, so equal, or something.
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, 10:31 PM   #175
quixotecoyote
Howling to glory I go
 
quixotecoyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 10,379
Many pieces of bad evidence do not make good evidence.
__________________
If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.
quixotecoyote 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 6th March 2015, 05:06 AM   #176
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Witch hunt? Did you read the New York times article about her lawyers "negotiating" with the state department about what state department documents she was willing to turn over?

If it was a witch hunt, the lawyers should have immediately told Congress and let them use their contempt power.

Hillary's contempt for transparancy is laid bare. She is toast.
The witch hunt is the rabid rights body of work. That's all they've done done for the last few years. Seemingly all time not spent on ignorant attacks on Obama has been dedicated to attacking Hillary. The constant barrage has left your intended audience bored, and deaf.
Bottom line on these emails... who cares?
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 6th March 2015, 06:12 AM   #177
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,749
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Bottom line on these emails... who cares?
Those who care if their government operates as transparently as possible should.

Those emails are the work product of a federal employee. They are not owned by Clinton. They are owned by you and I, and the generations that came before and those ye to arrive. We shouldn't grant the right to be the sole owner to any official and withhold our collective property just because of ... well, I'm not sure if she ever gave a reason why she didn't turn them over. And we shouldn't turn a blind eye because they share the same label as one votes.
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 6th March 2015, 06:21 AM   #178
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Those who care if their government operates as transparently as possible should.

Those emails are the work product of a federal employee. They are not owned by Clinton. They are owned by you and I, and the generations that came before and those ye to arrive. We shouldn't grant the right to be the sole owner to any official and withhold our collective property just because of ... well, I'm not sure if she ever gave a reason why she didn't turn them over. And we shouldn't turn a blind eye because they share the same label as one votes.
People don't care because of the points you didn't feel the need to acknowledge. Which sort of proved my point
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 6th March 2015, 06:44 AM   #179
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,749
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
People don't care because of the points you didn't feel the need to acknowledge. Which sort of proved my point
When I said:
And we shouldn't turn a blind eye because they share the same label as one votes.

I addressed your point. Party affiliation may be the reason why people are turning a blind eye, but it isn't a very compelling reason for it. Nor should it be something we should strive for.
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 6th March 2015, 06:54 AM   #180
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
When I said:
And we shouldn't turn a blind eye because they share the same label as one votes.

I addressed your point. Party affiliation may be the reason why people are turning a blind eye, but it isn't a very compelling reason for it. Nor should it be something we should strive for.
Well I personally have no party affiliation, and I'm sick to death of the constant barrage against Hillary.
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 6th March 2015, 07:12 AM   #181
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Well I personally have no party affiliation, and I'm sick to death of the constant barrage against Hillary.
Then i suspect that you have not fully acquainted yourself with the facts.

I am sick to death of the "nothing to see here" "leave Hilary alone" "poor Clintons" arguments.

She arrogantly decided to circumvent basic record keeping and is now "negotiating" with the US Government about what Hillary Clinton thinks she will turn over.

I will stipulate that you don't care.
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 6th March 2015, 07:15 AM   #182
Magyar
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post

So....where's the problem?
That it's a Democrat and specifically Clinton. When Jeb Bush does it and releases "all of the e-mails" well then there is nothing to see here move along.
Magyar 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 6th March 2015, 07:33 AM   #183
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Magyar View Post
That it's a Democrat and specifically Clinton. When Jeb Bush does it and releases "all of the e-mails" well then there is nothing to see here move along.
Jeb Bush? Who's he? Was he one of the most senior officials in the United States government too, let alone 4th in line to succeed the President?
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 6th March 2015, 07:48 AM   #184
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 14,652
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Jeb Bush? Who's he? Was he one of the most senior officials in the United States government too, let alone 4th in line to succeed the President?
Just so we're clear: You only hold certain elected officials to a standard of transparency?

Where exactly is the line drawn?

Governors are clearly given a pass. I guess their jobs aren't important enough to require transparency.

What about the Secretary of Treasury?

Secretary of Labor?

Attorney General?

How about Senators?

Congressman?

Also, Jeb Bush might be running for President. Don't you think the level of transparency with which he handles his administration is important?
johnny karate 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 6th March 2015, 08:25 AM   #185
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Just so we're clear: You only hold certain elected officials to a standard of transparency?

Where exactly is the line drawn?

Governors are clearly given a pass. I guess their jobs aren't important enough to require transparency.

What about the Secretary of Treasury?

Secretary of Labor?

Attorney General?

How about Senators?

Congressman?

Also, Jeb Bush might be running for President. Don't you think the level of transparency with which he handles his administration is important?
Well, as a start, let's at least draw the line between people who were covered by federal law and those who weren't. When we're done drawing that line, we might want to draw the line between people whose activities and communications were central to various federal investigations, including those by Inspectors General, the DOJ, and both houses of Congress, let alone Freedom of Information Act requests by members of the press and public watchdogs, and those who weren't. If there's time, we might also want to draw a line between the most prominent politician in the United States besides the President himself, and a guy who has been out of office for the last eight years and is named Jeb for God's sake.
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 6th March 2015, 08:27 AM   #186
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Jeb Bush? Who's he? Was he one of the most senior officials in the United States government too, let alone 4th in line to succeed the President?
Nah, just a standard tu quoque/distraction/evasion.

Typical fallacious reasoning from the "leave Hilary Alone" crowd.
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 6th March 2015, 08:35 AM   #187
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 14,652
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Well, as a start, let's at least draw the line between people who were covered by federal law and those who weren't.
I'm not sure why that matters as you still haven't been able to articulate the law that Clinton supposedly broke.

Quote:
When we're done drawing that line, we might want to draw the line between people whose activities and communications were central to various federal investigations, including those by Inspectors General, the DOJ, and both houses of Congress, let alone Freedom of Information Act requests by members of the press and public watchdogs, and those who weren't.
I see.

As long as a government official is never subjected to anything those things, no need for transparency.

But the moment they are, they needed to have that transparency already in place.

Makes complete sense.

Quote:
If there's time, we might also want to draw a line between the most prominent politician in the United States besides the President himself, and a guy who has been out of office for the last eight years and is named Jeb for God's sake.
Well, that line has already been drawn.

I just want know exactly where it has been drawn.

All we know now is that is it somewhere between "Secretary of the State" and "governor".
johnny karate 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 6th March 2015, 08:40 AM   #188
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 14,652
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Nah, just a standard tu quoque/distraction/evasion.

Typical fallacious reasoning from the "leave Hilary Alone" crowd.
I don't think we should "leave Hillary alone". I think this should be investigated, and then wait to see what the investigation yields. Like what is currently happening.

What this is instead is an opportunity for the manufactured outrage of those in this thread to be revealed as nothing more than partisan hackery from clumsy hypocrites.

And so far, it's working like a charm.
johnny karate 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 6th March 2015, 08:42 AM   #189
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 15,617
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
I agree with that as well.

My posts are not intended as a defense of Hillary Clinton's e-mail practices, which I think displayed poor judgment at best.

I originally posted in response to a comment by Ziggurat in which he claimed: "I'd feel even better if she hadn't violated the law and used a private email account ..."

The claim that Hillary Clinton had violated the law by using a private e-mail account appeared factually dubious to me.

It's a small point. But it's the kind of small point which the right-wing echo chamber often inserts into discussions and misleads people into believing through sheer repetition. That makes rational discussion much harder. I therefore thought it would be good to check whether Ziggurat was correct on this or not. (It appears he was not.) But my interest was in questioning a dubious claim -- not in defending Hillary Clinton's record-keeping practices.
Yes indeed. Getting to the facts of the matter is not what I'm complaining about. I very much appreciate what you have to say, per usual.
__________________
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 6th March 2015, 08:43 AM   #190
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Last night I posted a link to the Cable that Clinton sent out that required all state Department employees, except Clinton and Huma and whoever else had access to @clintonemail.com, of course, to use secure government servers and email.

That directive referred to "FAM." I have located a copy of the regs for your perusal.

State Department PDF

I know, I know, what difference does it make anyway, Hilary 2016.....
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 6th March 2015, 08:56 AM   #191
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I don't think we should "leave Hillary alone". I think this should be investigated, and then wait to see what the investigation yields. Like what is currently happening.

What this is instead is an opportunity for the manufactured outrage of those in this thread to be revealed as nothing more than partisan hackery from clumsy hypocrites.

And so far, it's working like a charm.
Well said. The investigation should run it's course and if there are legal repercussions, so be it.

However, like Benghazi I suspect anything other then a recommendation to hang Clinton, will end up being dragged on and on and on....
__________________
For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.
DavidJames 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 6th March 2015, 09:04 AM   #192
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I'm not sure why that matters as you still haven't been able to articulate the law that Clinton supposedly broke.
I'm quite sure you're using the word "articulate" incorrectly. It manifestly does not mean "explain at a level that a kindergartner could understand."

Quote:
I see.

As long as a government official is never subjected to anything those things, no need for transparency.

But the moment they are, they needed to have that transparency already in place.

Makes complete sense.
No, that is not my point. My point is that these investigations have been going on for over two years, and only recently did we find that the State Department hadn't searched for relevant emails on her private server, nor were investigators even made aware that such a private server existed. Nor had the State Department been able to adequately comply with FOIA requests. That proves that Hillary's record-keeping was not "appropriate," and that the effect of her inappropriate record-keeping was to obstruct federal investigations and transparency in general. This compounds the offense and raises the "appropriate" level of scrutiny and attention by the media.
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 6th March 2015, 09:06 AM   #193
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
Well said. The investigation should run it's course and if there are legal repercussions, so be it.

However, like Benghazi I suspect anything other then a recommendation to hang Clinton, will end up being dragged on and on and on....
Do you concede that all Benghazi investigations to date are incomplete, as Hillary's private (but still official!) emails concerning Benghazi were unavailable?
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 6th March 2015, 09:11 AM   #194
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Avid readers will recall that I pointed out that Hilary's cowboy/homebrewed server compromised The State Department's ability to impose its duties imposed by FOIA.

here is yet another great example, in particular the Gawker Blumenthal FOIA:

"The State Department replied to our request by saying that, after an extensive search, it could find no records responsive to our request," Trotter writes. "That is not to say that they found the emails and refused to release them—it is conceivable, after all, that the State Department might have attempted to deny the release of the Clinton-Blumenthal correspondence on grounds of national security or Blumenthal’s own privacy. Instead, the State Department confirmed that it didn’t have the emails at all."

here is the conclusion:

Quote:
Either way, the private server will have helped her to evade at least one FOIA request. And we only know that much because a hacker stumbled on her emails. What, if anything, she deleted from her server may remain forever unknowable.
Perhaps this will be deemed just more "partisan hackery from clumsy hypocrites...."
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 6th March 2015, 09:58 AM   #195
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Then i suspect that you have not fully acquainted yourself with the facts.

I am sick to death of the "nothing to see here" "leave Hilary alone" "poor Clintons" arguments.

She arrogantly decided to circumvent basic record keeping and is now "negotiating" with the US Government about what Hillary Clinton thinks she will turn over.

I will stipulate that you don't care.
I understand you're sick to death of "nothing to see here" arguments.

It's my point of view, and the general feeling I get about America, that we're ALL sick to death because of the Benghazi witch hunt. I'm sure this latest -gate controversy is as bad as you make it out to be. But all of our outrage over anything Hillary does was killed by the Benghazi witch hunt. That's on YOU.
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 6th March 2015, 10:12 AM   #196
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
I understand you're sick to death of "nothing to see here" arguments.
Thanks, I understand your point.

Hey, I'm concerned about the Government withholding documents, and government transparency. I was unhappy when I learned that Obama Administration had withheld the Rhodes Memo, I was unhappy when i learned that Nixon's tapes were missing 18 minutes or so.

That is on me and I take FULL RESPONSIBILITY.

Thanks for posting.
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 6th March 2015, 10:51 AM   #197
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
here is a thoughtful editorial regarding Clinton's conduct that I think you will enjoy reading and discussing:

If people aspire to public service, they should behave as stewards of a public trust, and that includes the records — all of them. Ms. Clinton’s use of private e-mail shows poor regard for that public trust.

Why did she not turn over the e-mails promptly upon leaving office? why indeed.

I hope that The Washington Post does not get branded as clumsy hypocrites like others posting in this thread have, but that is of course a risk one has to take.
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 6th March 2015, 10:59 AM   #198
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 10,004
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Well that and the half of dozen security experts he quoted. Plus the other post that showed the certificates were compromised. Plus the facts that clintonemail.com was known for a long time before 2013. Plus the fact that Clinton herself issued a directive explicitly prohibiting the use of personal emails due to their lack of security.

But hey, as you point out, appeal to authority. Silly computer experts.

I understand you have a minecraft server, so equal, or something.
The why the hell did you ask? Did you ask just to handwave it away and give yourself some smug feeling of self-assurance? That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen in my entire life.

"Someone give feedback"

"Ok, well I have certifications, and practical experience in the field, and here's my analysis."

"YOUR OPINION IS CRAP CAUSE appeal_to_other_authority AND YOU JUST PLAY A GAME ON YOURS LOL"

What a waste of time, please, next time you ask for something be specific that your own ignorance is going to cause you to discard it.

What experience do you have by the way? May I ask your credentials? Do you have any network security experience? Was her system hacked? All I read in your reports is that it "could have been", not that it ever was.

Completely incredulous.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 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 6th March 2015, 11:03 AM   #199
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
I think that Republican witch hunters/conspiracy theorists aggressively pursuing this is going to have the opposite of its intended effect: normal, sane people will be even less likely to care.
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 6th March 2015, 11:04 AM   #200
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 14,652
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
I'm quite sure you're using the word "articulate" incorrectly. It manifestly does not mean "explain at a level that a kindergartner could understand."
Then allow me to clarify.

When I say "articulate" what I mean is explain what specific law was violated and how it was specifically violated instead of whining “I don't have time to look for what you ask right now (nor am I inclined to do it anyway)”.

In other words engage honestly and in good faith when challenged on claims one has made instead of copping out like an intellectual coward.

Quote:
No, that is not my point. My point is that these investigations have been going on for over two years, and only recently did we find that the State Department hadn't searched for relevant emails on her private server, nor were investigators even made aware that such a private server existed. Nor had the State Department been able to adequately comply with FOIA requests. That proves that Hillary's record-keeping was not "appropriate," and that the effect of her inappropriate record-keeping was to obstruct federal investigations and transparency in general.
Obstruction of a federal investigation sounds like it might be illegal. Can you demonstrate Clinton commited such a crime?

Or is this just something else you take on “faith”?

Quote:
This compounds the offense and raises the "appropriate" level of scrutiny and attention by the media.
I don’t have a problem with the scrutiny or attention by the media. It’s well-deserved, as far as I can tell.

What I do have a problem with is partisan hypocrites making claims they have no ability or intention of substantiating.
johnny karate 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 12:42 AM.
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.