ISF Logo   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 2016 elections , Clinton controversies , hillary clinton , James Comey , presidential candidates

Reply
Old 16th June 2016, 03:00 PM   #241
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,342
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
You seem to have mistaken me for Pollyanna and Gandhi's child. Yes, it was an attack - - of the contents, not the member. If I post meaningless nit-picking blather like that, I'd expect to be called out on it, too.

No one looks at this crap with a critical eye? Well, no one lined up on the witch hunting team, that's for certain. A White House aide says "criminal" and that's twisted for a series of posts into "Obama said "criminal". And we're supposed to accept that that was an error? It was intentional distortion IMHO.

The larger issue is the extreme effort being given to this. No news? Let's go cherry pick something and bump the thread. A civil court judge uses the word? A ha! Look what I found! Come back when the FBI says "it's a criminal investigation"... or the AG/DoJ. You guys are just filling time because apparently it would kill you to just shut up and wait.

It's partisan nonsense. It's ridiculous and it merits ridicule.
Did you point out the similar ridiculousness of Clinton calling the investigation a "security review"?
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2016, 03:11 PM   #242
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,097
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Did you point out the similar ridiculousness of Clinton calling the investigation a "security review"?
Good question. Plus as I pointed out, her website specifically denies that it is a criminal investigation:

Quote:
Is Department of Justice conducting a criminal inquiry into Clinton’s email use?

No.
The Federal Court judge who looked at her IT guy's immunity agreement said it was a "criminal investigation."

As such, who ya gonna believe, Hillary? The Shillaries? Or Judge Sullivan (who was appointed by Bill Clinton).

But according to your correspondent pointing this out is "partisan nonsense. It's ridiculous and it merits ridicule." I read it on the iSkep.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations

Last edited by The Big Dog; 16th June 2016 at 03:18 PM.
The Big Dog 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2016, 08:59 PM   #243
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,345
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Good question. Plus as I pointed out, her website specifically denies that it is a criminal investigation:



The Federal Court judge who looked at her IT guy's immunity agreement said it was a "criminal investigation."

As such, who ya gonna believe, Hillary? The Shillaries? Or Judge Sullivan (who was appointed by Bill Clinton).

But according to your correspondent pointing this out is "partisan nonsense. It's ridiculous and it merits ridicule." I read it on the iSkep.
Keep repeating your spin. You didn't address the post that qualified these two "smoking guns" you're clinging to as the good ship "Get Hillary" goes down.

First person - Obama's press secretary. Mis-spoke. Didn't so much as admit that, but walked back the word "criminal" in a press conference.

Second person - the judge in a civil trial. Whether or not the investigation is criminal was NOT part of his ruling. The word appears. Likely a habitual thing as judges probably refer to "criminal investigations" all the time. He was not making a "ruling" on some rabid right wing talking point. The right wing cocoon reaction: "See it. Praise the Lord, it's proof. Proof, I tell ya."

The first you parlayed into "Obama admits it." You were caught out. No one believes it was an honest mistake.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele
"Chicken **** Poster!"
Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2016, 09:05 PM   #244
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,345
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Did you point out the similar ridiculousness of Clinton calling the investigation a "security review"?
Figuring out my motives is not part of this thread. Try addressing the points I raised and not second-guessing. Does whether or not Foolmewunz said that Hillary spins things really have any bearing on the Great Hillary Witch Hunt?
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele
"Chicken **** Poster!"
Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2016, 09:10 PM   #245
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,561
Maybe tomorrow the FBI will finally frogmarch Hillary off to jail where she will have spend the weekend.

LOL
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2016, 10:37 PM   #246
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,097
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Keep repeating your spin. You didn't address the post that qualified these two "smoking guns" you're clinging to as the good ship "Get Hillary" goes down.

First person - Obama's press secretary. Mis-spoke. Didn't so much as admit that, but walked back the word "criminal" in a press conference.

Second person - the judge in a civil trial. Whether or not the investigation is criminal was NOT part of his ruling. The word appears. Likely a habitual thing as judges probably refer to "criminal investigations" all the time. He was not making a "ruling" on some rabid right wing talking point. The right wing cocoon reaction: "See it. Praise the Lord, it's proof. Proof, I tell ya."

The first you parlayed into "Obama admits it." You were caught out. No one believes it was an honest mistake.
Lolz. "Likely a habitual thing". "Misspoke." Hee hee!

Likely a habitual thing? Can I borrow that?

Judge Sullivan calls it a criminal investigation after reviewing the immunity agreement.

Likely a habitual thing.

Likely! Habitual! Thing!

Hilarious...! Habitually!
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2016, 11:02 PM   #247
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,345
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Lolz. "Likely a habitual thing". "Misspoke." Hee hee!

Likely a habitual thing? Can I borrow that?

Judge Sullivan calls it a criminal investigation after reviewing the immunity agreement.

Likely a habitual thing.

Likely! Habitual! Thing!

Hilarious...! Habitually!
English is not your first language? Lol laughing dog smiley smiley.

You can borrow anything you want. You're running out of material and we wouldn't want to see this thread peter out until you've had time to get the maximum egg on your face and copious servings of crow and humble pie.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele
"Chicken **** Poster!"
Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2016, 11:17 PM   #248
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
English is not your first language? pie.
Ex pats who have to go abroad, to get one. Mean little...
But seriously...
Dog Town is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 03:02 AM   #249
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 17,038
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
English is not your first language? Lol laughing dog smiley smiley.

You can borrow anything you want. You're running out of material and we wouldn't want to see this thread peter out until you've had time to get the maximum egg on your face and copious servings of crow and humble pie.

mmmmm...off topic and immature, double bonus points
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 05:51 AM   #250
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,503
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Good question. Plus as I pointed out, her website specifically denies that it is a criminal investigation:
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/s...ly_24_2015.pdf

IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government's possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral- it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes. The IC IG is statutorily required to refer potential compromises of national security information to the appropriate IC security officials.


Seems correct to me.

Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
The Federal Court judge who looked at her IT guy's immunity agreement said it was a "criminal investigation."

As such, who ya gonna believe, Hillary? The Shillaries? Or Judge Sullivan (who was appointed by Bill Clinton).
Your fallacy is ... appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.


Please provide your evidence the Department of Justice conducting a criminal inquiry.

To help you, here is the FBI director declining to use the word "criminal" when discussing the investigation:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-d...ry?id=39048269

Even though Hillary Clinton has repeatedly described the FBI probe over her use of a private email server as a "security inquiry," FBI Director James Comey today questioned the use of that phrase.

“I don’t know what that means," Comey told reporters today in Washington, D.C. "We’re conducting an investigation. That’s the bureau’s business. That’s what we do."


Oh, and BTW:

Sources have told ABC News that so far the investigation has found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

How can it be a criminal investigation when there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
But according to your correspondent pointing this out is "partisan nonsense. It's ridiculous and it merits ridicule." I read it on the iSkep.
Yes, your fallacies and poor arguments are ridiculous partisan nonsense.
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 05:52 AM   #251
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,503
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
mmmmm...off topic and immature, double bonus points
An expert opinion, no doubt...
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 06:18 AM   #252
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,097
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
mmmmm...off topic and immature, double bonus points
That is likely a habitual thing.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 08:07 AM   #253
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,409
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post

...
How can it be a criminal investigation when there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
...
??? The FBI is a law enforcement agency. All of their investigations are criminal investigations. That is the basis for their authority. They may well determine -- they may well have already determined -- that no crimes have been committed regarding the Clinton emails, or that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute potential crimes. But the FBI decides whether there is such evidence; they don't start with the premise "There's no crime here, we'll just poke around anyway." And at this point, we don't actually know what evidence they may have found.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investi...we_investigate

I doubt that Hillary will be prosecuted. There's certainly a question of proving intent, if nothing else. But it's just a measure of her smarminess that she calls what the FBI is doing "a security review." She's a lawyer; she knows exactly what's going on. And you can be sure that when/if she's cleared, she'll be proclaiming "The FBI conducted a thorough investigation and concluded that I did nothing wrong!"
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 08:19 AM   #254
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,097
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
??? The FBI is a law enforcement agency. All of their investigations are criminal investigations. That is the basis for their authority. They may well determine -- they may well have already determined -- that no crimes have been committed regarding the Clinton emails, or that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute potential crimes. But the FBI decides whether there is such evidence; they don't start with the premise "There's no crime here, we'll just poke around anyway." And at this point, we don't actually know what evidence they may have found.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investi...we_investigate

I doubt that Hillary will be prosecuted. There's certainly a question of proving intent, if nothing else. But it's just a measure of her smarminess that she calls what the FBI is doing "a security review." She's a lawyer; she knows exactly what's going on. And you can be sure that when/if she's cleared, she'll be proclaiming "The FBI conducted a thorough investigation and concluded that I did nothing wrong!"
I burst out laughing when i read what your correspondent had wrote. Oh dear!

"The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential," U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote in an order issued Tuesday.

How can there be a limited immunity agreement under the Fifth Amendment if there is no criminal investigation?

The actual Judge who actually read the actual immunity agreement and specifically ordered that it must remained sealed specifically based his ruling on the fact that there is a criminal investigation.

I get that Shillaries want to stick up for Hillary and try to justify the lies on her campaign website, but their arguments cannot get any more ludicrous than this.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 08:20 AM   #255
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,503
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
??? The FBI is a law enforcement agency. All of their investigations are criminal investigations. That is the basis for their authority. They may well determine -- they may well have already determined -- that no crimes have been committed regarding the Clinton emails, or that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute potential crimes. But the FBI decides whether there is such evidence; they don't start with the premise "There's no crime here, we'll just poke around anyway." And at this point, we don't actually know what evidence they may have found.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investi...we_investigate

That can't be correct, or we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we ?

I'll also add that I don't think it makes a difference what it's called (other than public perception), but it's an interesting semantic debate.

Clearly (IMO), the director went out of his way to not call it a criminal investigation - so I think there's more to it than All of their investigations are criminal investigations.

The referral specifically does not say criminal investigation.

Again, for example, the DOJ specifically does not label it a criminal investigation in their court filing:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/documen...nterest-01363/

Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I doubt that Hillary will be prosecuted. There's certainly a question of proving intent, if nothing else. But it's just a measure of her smarminess that she calls what the FBI is doing "a security review." She's a lawyer; she knows exactly what's going on. And you can be sure that when/if she's cleared, she'll be proclaiming "The FBI conducted a thorough investigation and concluded that I did nothing wrong!"
Agreed on all points.
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 08:25 AM   #256
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,345
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
??? The FBI is a law enforcement agency. All of their investigations are criminal investigations. That is the basis for their authority. They may well determine -- they may well have already determined -- that no crimes have been committed regarding the Clinton emails, or that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute potential crimes. But the FBI decides whether there is such evidence; they don't start with the premise "There's no crime here, we'll just poke around anyway." And at this point, we don't actually know what evidence they may have found.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investi...we_investigate

I doubt that Hillary will be prosecuted. There's certainly a question of proving intent, if nothing else. But it's just a measure of her smarminess that she calls what the FBI is doing "a security review." She's a lawyer; she knows exactly what's going on. And you can be sure that when/if she's cleared, she'll be proclaiming "The FBI conducted a thorough investigation and concluded that I did nothing wrong!"
Hilited: You sure about that? Do we even know which division of the FBI is investigating. They aren't all involved in criminal investigations no matter what we learned from Efram Zimbalist Jr.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele
"Chicken **** Poster!"
Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 08:27 AM   #257
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,194
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
??? The FBI is a law enforcement agency. All of their investigations are criminal investigations. That is the basis for their authority. They may well determine -- they may well have already determined -- that no crimes have been committed regarding the Clinton emails, or that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute potential crimes. But the FBI decides whether there is such evidence; they don't start with the premise "There's no crime here, we'll just poke around anyway." And at this point, we don't actually know what evidence they may have found.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investi...we_investigate

I doubt that Hillary will be prosecuted. There's certainly a question of proving intent, if nothing else. But it's just a measure of her smarminess that she calls what the FBI is doing "a security review." She's a lawyer; she knows exactly what's going on. And you can be sure that when/if she's cleared, she'll be proclaiming "The FBI conducted a thorough investigation and concluded that I did nothing wrong!"
The point, as has been explained already, is framing the issue, or perception. Even the FBI is not calling it a criminal investigation, but Fox News, 16.5, and various others are doing their best to keep the association of "criminal" there. Clinton, and others, are doing their best to refute such sleazy* insinuations by using innocuous terminology to describe the investigation.




*if Clinton is "smarmy" for not wanting to use the word "criminal", Fox and others must be at least as bad for forcing that word in every chance they get.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 08:39 AM   #258
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,409
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Hilited: You sure about that? Do we even know which division of the FBI is investigating. They aren't all involved in criminal investigations no matter what we learned from Efram Zimbalist Jr.
From the link I posted:
The very heart of FBI operations lies in our investigations—which serve, as our mission states, “to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats and to enforce the criminal laws of the United States.” We currently have jurisdiction over violations of more than 200 categories of federal law, and you can find the major ones below, grouped within our national security and criminal priorities. [Emphasis added.] Also visit our Intelligence program site, which underpins and informs all our investigative programs.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investi...we_investigate

What on earth do you think the FBI does? They may well determine that no prosecutable crime was committed. But reaching that conclusion requires a criminal investigation. The FBI doesn't write parking tickets.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 08:42 AM   #259
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,503
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
I burst out laughing when i read what your correspondent had wrote. Oh dear!
I burst out laughing when isaw you're still pretending not to read my posts ! Oh dear !

Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
"The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential," U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote in an order issued Tuesday.
Still an appeal to authority.


Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
How can there be a limited immunity agreement under the Fifth Amendment if there is no criminal investigation?
Because immunity doesn't work for just criminal trials ... is this JW case a criminal trial where he is claiming immunity ? Duh.

Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
The actual Judge who actually read the actual immunity agreement and specifically ordered that it must remained sealed specifically based his ruling on the fact that there is a criminal investigation.

I get that Shillaries want to stick up for Hillary and try to justify the lies on her campaign website, but their arguments cannot get any more ludicrous than this.
Only topped by HDS arguments.
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 08:43 AM   #260
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,503
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
From the link I posted:
The very heart of FBI operations lies in our investigations—which serve, as our mission states, “to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats and to enforce the criminal laws of the United States.” We currently have jurisdiction over violations of more than 200 categories of federal law, and you can find the major ones below, grouped within our national security and criminal priorities. [Emphasis added.] Also visit our Intelligence program site, which underpins and informs all our investigative programs.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investi...we_investigate

What on earth do you think the FBI does? They may well determine that no prosecutable crime was committed. But reaching that conclusion requires a criminal investigation. The FBI doesn't write parking tickets.
grouped within our national security and criminal priorities

Is that not different than criminal ?
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 08:44 AM   #261
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,345
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
From the link I posted:
The very heart of FBI operations lies in our investigations—which serve, as our mission states, “to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats and to enforce the criminal laws of the United States.” We currently have jurisdiction over violations of more than 200 categories of federal law, and you can find the major ones below, grouped within our national security and criminal priorities. [Emphasis added.] Also visit our Intelligence program site, which underpins and informs all our investigative programs.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investi...we_investigate

What on earth do you think the FBI does? They may well determine that no prosecutable crime was committed. But reaching that conclusion requires a criminal investigation. The FBI doesn't write parking tickets.
So, you're saying that you're SURE, then?

You do have one last chance to go check and retract. [Jeez, you'd think people would smell my traps coming, by now.]
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele
"Chicken **** Poster!"
Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 08:50 AM   #262
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,342
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Figuring out my motives is not part of this thread. Try addressing the points I raised and not second-guessing. Does whether or not Foolmewunz said that Hillary spins things really have any bearing on the Great Hillary Witch Hunt?
You bristled at being called "partisan" yet your outrage seems decidedly selective.

As for whether the investigation is criminal or not, it's a meaningless derail started by Clinton herself, when she referred to it as a "security review" and got slapped down by the FBI director.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 08:51 AM   #263
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,503
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
You bristled at being called "partisan" yet your outrage seems decidedly selective.

As for whether the investigation is criminal or not, it's a meaningless derail started by Clinton herself, when she referred to it as a "security review" and got slapped down by the FBI director.
Yet he didn't call it criminal, either ...

Your explanation of why ?
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 08:53 AM   #264
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,342
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/s...ly_24_2015.pdf

IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government's possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral- it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes. The IC IG is statutorily required to refer potential compromises of national security information to the appropriate IC security officials.


Seems correct to me.



Your fallacy is ... appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.


Please provide your evidence the Department of Justice conducting a criminal inquiry.

To help you, here is the FBI director declining to use the word "criminal" when discussing the investigation:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-d...ry?id=39048269

Even though Hillary Clinton has repeatedly described the FBI probe over her use of a private email server as a "security inquiry," FBI Director James Comey today questioned the use of that phrase.

“I don’t know what that means," Comey told reporters today in Washington, D.C. "We’re conducting an investigation. That’s the bureau’s business. That’s what we do."


Oh, and BTW:

Sources have told ABC News that so far the investigation has found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

How can it be a criminal investigation when there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.



Yes, your fallacies and poor arguments are ridiculous partisan nonsense.
That's only a fallacy in formal logic. An appeal to authority is perfectly valid if the person is in fact an authority.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 08:53 AM   #265
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,097
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
You bristled at being called "partisan" yet your outrage seems decidedly selective.

As for whether the investigation is criminal or not, it's a meaningless derail started by Clinton herself, when she referred to it as a "security review" and got slapped down by the FBI director.
Well, not meaningless. The lie that it is not a Criminal Investigation is right now, today on her website.

The Judge overseeing part of her case specifically said that it was and based his ruling on it.

That is definitive.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 08:55 AM   #266
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,503
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
That's only a fallacy in formal logic. An appeal to authority is perfectly valid if the person is in fact an authority.
And in this case, the Judge is not an authority on the FBIs investigation, is he ?
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 08:58 AM   #267
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,345
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
You bristled at being called "partisan" yet your outrage seems decidedly selective.

As for whether the investigation is criminal or not, it's a meaningless derail started by Clinton herself, when she referred to it as a "security review" and got slapped down by the FBI director.
What word do you think the FBI director was objecting to?
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele
"Chicken **** Poster!"
Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 08:59 AM   #268
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,342
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
And in this case, the Judge is not an authority on the FBIs investigation, is he ?
I don't know, has he presided over FBI cases before?
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 08:59 AM   #269
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,345
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Well, not meaningless. The lie that it is not a Criminal Investigation is right now, today on her website.

The Judge overseeing part of her case specifically said that it was and based his ruling on it.

That is definitive.
The judge overseeing the civil suit. That is not "part of her case". That is what we call "a case". See the difference?
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele
"Chicken **** Poster!"
Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 09:00 AM   #270
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,097
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
That's only a fallacy in formal logic. An appeal to authority is perfectly valid if the person is in fact an authority.
Your correspondent is claiming that the Judge's ruling, after he looked at the FBI's use immunity agreement with Pagliano is an "appeal to authority" fallacy?

Bwhahahaha!!!!!!!

Quote:
It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.
He is a United States District Court judge who specifically reviewed the "empirical evidence" (the immunity agreement) and based his legal order on it.

Claiming that relying on that order is fallacious is absolutely ludicrous and totally HILARIOUS!
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 09:03 AM   #271
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,345
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I don't know, has he presided over FBI cases before?
He's not presiding over one, now.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele
"Chicken **** Poster!"
Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 09:04 AM   #272
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,097
Rosen reports the emails show “dozens of State Department officials working overtime to get Fernando a … ‘Top Secret’ security clearance before ISAB’s first meeting.” Some were outraged that he was even appointed due to his lack of experience. Rosen also added that emails show Clinton aide Huma Abedin “scrambling to accommodate a sudden request by Fernando for some facetime with … [Secretary Clinton].”

Hillary had her staff rushing around to accommodate a big Clinton Foundation donor, who she stuck on a top secret panel despite his complete lack of qualifications.

By the way, why are we just hearing about it now?

After his resignation, Clinton aide Huma Abedin sent an email notifying Heather Samuelson about his departure. Samuelson served as then-Secretary Clinton’s liaison to the White House and later she was the woman who determined which of Clinton’s e-mails were work related and which could be deleted.

Let me guess, Heather concluded that any emails about Hillary's donor buddy were "personal."
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 09:08 AM   #273
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,345
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Your correspondent is claiming that the Judge's ruling, after he looked at the FBI's use immunity agreement with Pagliano is an "appeal to authority" fallacy?

Bwhahahaha!!!!!!!



He is a United States District Court judge who specifically reviewed the "empirical evidence" (the immunity agreement) and based his legal order on it.

Claiming that relying on that order is fallacious is absolutely ludicrous and totally HILARIOUS!
Nitpick: You mis-spelled Hillaryous.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele
"Chicken **** Poster!"
Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 09:13 AM   #274
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,342
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
He's not presiding over one, now.
Doesn't matter. He had cause to refer to the investigation. He's been a federal court judge for 20 years. He's probably dealt with the FBI numerous times in those years. I would say he's an authority on how to characterize an investigation.

We all knew it was a criminal investigation anyway.

"In August, the FBI entered the case.

The FBI is determining if criminal activity occurred in connection with the email setup.

We talked to experts in federal criminal investigations, and they told us that the FBI doesn’t look into issues just for the heck of it. They assess cases to find out whether criminal activity occurred.
"

"We don’t do these because we’re curious," said Ellen Glasser, a retired FBI special agent who worked on cases regarding mishandled classified information. "There’s a potential that a criminal violation took place."

"But of course, Clinton’s actions are clearly front-and-center in the FBI investigation. Based on her knowledge of how classified information mishandling cases proceed, and her understanding of public reports about Clinton’s role in the email setup, Glasser said the FBI is very likely looking at Clinton specifically.

"My experience tells me that Hillary Clinton is a subject of a criminal investigation," Glasser said."

"The investigation has been going on for nine months now. To Pollitt, that means it’s probably a tough case to pin down.

"If this thing was dead on arrival, nobody would be willing to keep this thing going," he said.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-emails-recap/
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 09:18 AM   #275
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,345
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Doesn't matter. He had cause to refer to the investigation. He's been a federal court judge for 20 years. He's probably dealt with the FBI numerous times in those years. I would say he's an authority on how to characterize an investigation.

We all knew it was a criminal investigation anyway.

"In August, the FBI entered the case.

The FBI is determining if criminal activity occurred in connection with the email setup.

We talked to experts in federal criminal investigations, and they told us that the FBI doesn’t look into issues just for the heck of it. They assess cases to find out whether criminal activity occurred.
"

"We don’t do these because we’re curious," said Ellen Glasser, a retired FBI special agent who worked on cases regarding mishandled classified information. "There’s a potential that a criminal violation took place."

"But of course, Clinton’s actions are clearly front-and-center in the FBI investigation. Based on her knowledge of how classified information mishandling cases proceed, and her understanding of public reports about Clinton’s role in the email setup, Glasser said the FBI is very likely looking at Clinton specifically.

"My experience tells me that Hillary Clinton is a subject of a criminal investigation," Glasser said."

"The investigation has been going on for nine months now. To Pollitt, that means it’s probably a tough case to pin down.

"If this thing was dead on arrival, nobody would be willing to keep this thing going," he said.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-emails-recap/
Please quote that honestly. Either indicate where you have snipped paragraphs or quote those paragraphs.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele
"Chicken **** Poster!"
Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 09:22 AM   #276
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,097
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Doesn't matter. He had cause to refer to the investigation. He's been a federal court judge for 20 years. He's probably dealt with the FBI numerous times in those years. I would say he's an authority on how to characterize an investigation.
As I said before, it goes way beyond that. He actually had the immunity agreement in front of him and used that to conclude that the FBI was doing a criminal investigation in order to rule on two legal issues before him:

1. whether the immunity agreement should be unsealed and

2. whether Paglianao had a proper basis to assert the 5th.

In making that ruling he had to and did make the judicial determination that the FBI was conducting a criminal investigation.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 09:30 AM   #277
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,345
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
As I said before, it goes way beyond that. He actually had the immunity agreement in front of him and used that to conclude that the FBI was doing a criminal investigation in order to rule on two legal issues before him:

1. whether the immunity agreement should be unsealed and

2. whether Paglianao had a proper basis to assert the 5th.

In making that ruling he had to and did make the judicial determination that the FBI was conducting a criminal investigation.
Hilited: You are making this up. Cite your source or admit that it's speculation. I mean it sounds impressive, but people make up impressive sounding bull **** legal terminology all the time. He made a judicial determination did he? Sounds might weighty. So, if you could just cite the source for that, we'll all be fine.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele
"Chicken **** Poster!"
Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 09:32 AM   #278
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,503
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Your correspondent is claiming <snip>
You know this reflects on you, not me, right ?
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 09:34 AM   #279
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,342
""The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential," U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote in an order issued Tuesday.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz4Br5Va8jj
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2016, 09:44 AM   #280
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,503
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
""The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential," U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote in an order issued Tuesday.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz4Br5Va8jj
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Yes. He wrote the words criminal investigation. The question is why.

Did he assume criminal part, or does the immunity agreement literally say "criminal investigation" ?

We don't know.

We can only assume or infer. Speculation.
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 02:46 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.