05-26-2016, 01:22 PM
(05-24-2016, 02:48 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:Hate to bust your ignorance bubble, but it happens all the time. That's particularly true when someone sends you unmarked information that they are broadcasting to other personal emails, and it is even more so when the material in question would not have been classified at the time but only retrospectively, years later .(05-24-2016, 10:24 AM)playwrite Wrote: No, intentionally releasing classified information is a criminal offense.
Perhaps, but admitting to unintentionally releasing classified information reveals a degree of incompetence that is unacceptable in very low level Non-Commissioned Officers.
And most importantly, exactly what information did she release prior to, and required by, this dust-up?
Quote:Kinser79Well, there you go, dummy, the emails were sent to her, i.e., others "put it there"; so from your logic, none of those people should be running for President - psss, they're not.
Quote:playwrite
There are several problems for boneheads like yourself in claiming Clinton's criminality -
First, and foremost, why would she intentionally release classified information
If classified information is on that server, and she put it there I have every reason to expect that she intended for that classified information to be on that server. That or she's too stupid to even be running for president. You can take your pick.
Quote:Kinser79
Quote:Quote:playwrite
- do you now believe that she too is a Kenyan Muslim Fascist Commie bred and raised since birth to takeaway your freedom fries? Or is it simply that she's a woman and only a t-bagger, with a dick, like yourself, can be in the White House.
Non-sequitor since I never bought into the whole birther thing. The rest of of it is pure ad hominum which leads me to believe you have no argument...no I know you have no argument.
Your claim was criminality, and I pointed out that "intent" is required. You refused to tell us what you believe would be her intent; I'm just filling-in with the usual bagger explanation because, well, you're a bagger. If you got some other brilliant insight on her motivation, please share - its probable is at least as hilarious as her being a Kenyan Muslim Fascist Commie; you guys always surprise me.
Quote:Kinser79
Quote:Quote:playwrite
Then there's the problems that she didn't send the emails and they were not marked to her as being classified.
Irrelevant. Any information that she had or has that could conceivably be classified, including oral communication, should be treated as if it is classified. I hope your investing is better than your lawyer-ing or you'll be looking for a nice new box when the bubble on the stock market pops.
It would seem the fundamental problem here is you don't know how emails work. You can have the best spam filter on the market but that doesn't stop those actual Kenyans from sending you emails on how much money you can make if you just give them your bank account numbers. By your logic, you are responsible for all such spam and we should all flay you! You live in a weird world, Kinser.
Quote:Kinser 79
Quote:Quote:playwrite
Most of the emails in question were sent to others with even less security (e.g., Hotmail);
Doesn't matter. If the emails in question were entirely personal in nature then there was offense. But should just one email contain governmental business she'll have definitely have problems with the Library of Congress even if no laws were broken. And of course that speaks to a level of incompetence that makes her unsuitable to be president.
First, being in trouble with the Library is not criminality - glad to see you've backed off your original dufus claim.
Second, it is clear that previous SoSs, NSAs, and likely countless government workers both sent and received emails with classified information, particularly information that was not classified at the time. Basically, your claim is the entire government is incompetent, and that just further seals the deal that your just another typical t-bagger.
Quote:Kinser79
Quote:Quote:can you even name one person who actually sent these email?
Can you?
I'm not the one making the claim of criminality or incompetence; that would be you. Sorry, but the fact that you can't back that up with, you know, facts, is not going to be lost in your sophomoric attempt of misdirection.
Quote:Kinser79
Quote:Quote:playwrite
Because if you can't, this has nothing to do with any actual national security and everything to do with, like Faux News, your Clinton Hate Syndrome.
Because if you can't then this whole diatribe has nothing to do with reality, but rather your irrational hatred of Fox News (and I don't care for them either, honestly, their too far in bed with Establishment GOP), and your Clinton Hardon. I bet her wrinkly ass gets you all hot and bothered you dirty old man!
Trying to embellish your sophomoric misdirection attempt is not going to gloss over your indifference to those who actually SENT classified information, and that your outrage is only another manifestation of just another CHDS loser.
As to getting hot and bothered, do you dream that Talking Yam's 'little man' might be just as orange? 50 shades of orange, perhaps?
Quote:Kinser79
Quote:Quote: playwrite
The information that has now been identified as classified has been retrospectively classified
Irrelevant. Information that was classified after the fact was supposed to be treated as classified to start with.
It's not if the classification benchmarks have changed; the information at the time would not have been classified by anyone at the time. As for any that should have been classified at the time, it addition to the fact that it was sent to her and others' personal emails, you have the typical struggle between State and the IC about what really needs to be classified - Colin Powell has raised how ridiculous retroactive classification has become even under his watch.
Quote:Kinser79
Quote:Quote:playwrite
- none have yet been identified that they should have been classified at the time they were sent. That may change, but for now, you have absolutely no information to suggest otherwise.
Myself I'm waiting for the FBI to submit the report of their investigation. Unlike you I don't often talk from my ass and as such I'm content to go with whatever the FBI finds. It is the AG that worries me.
Again, I'm not the one making the accusations of criminality BEFORE the FBI report comes out. Maybe you got something plugged in your ass and that would explain why shXt is coming out of your mouth? What an unselfaware hypocrite.
Quote:Kinser79
Quote:Quote:playwrite
Both former SoS Colin Powell and NSA Condi Rice have also been identified as having received unsecured emails with then unmarked, but now retrospectively, classificated information.
Neither later stored those emails on unsecured servers. A government official receiving emails from an unsecured server with information that is later classified is beyond their control. What they do after they have received that information, however, is.
Sorry, dude, but hotmail and google accounts are no more secure than a private server; but all are probable more secure than the State Dept's email server that is generally known to leak like a colander.
Quote:Kinser79
Quote:Quote: Where is your outrage about that? They seem even more likely to be Kenyan Muslim Fascist Commie bred and raised since birth to takeaway your freedom fries, don't they?
Who says I'm outraged? Just because you can't seem to have concerns about someone running for president (which neither General Powell nor Sec. Rice are doing--and are unlikely to do) doesn't mean that everyone has to run around like a chicken with their head cut off over every little thing.
But then again I'm not surprised really. Boomers, particularly white liberal ones, are not known for their emotional control. I'm willing to bet that the cause of that is their GI parents never telling them to shut the hell up.
You're going around and claiming Clinton is a criminal and refusing to back it up with any facts, and I'm the one out of control???
You live in a different universe that I do.Quote:Kinser79
Quote:Quote:playwrite
If he's so rich, why doesn't he release his tax returns? What is he hiding?
You do understand that the IRS is auditing his returns, right? You do understand that an audit is an investigation, right? And you do understand that when one is under an investigation their lawyers (which I assure you Daddy has) usually tell their clients to not release anything that could be construed as evidence to the press, in fact failing to give him such advice would violate their fiduciary duty to their client.
Gad, what a suck-up apologist. The IRS came out and said there is nothing that would prevent the Talking Yam from releasing his returns. The guy is running for the Presidency, and his difficulties with the IRS is off-limits?
Quote:Kinser79
Quote:Quote:Trump doesn't own most of the crapola with his name on it. It's all about branding.
Irrelevant. Using his name and brand under licensing agreements is quite profitable. Or is this about you being jealous that you have neither the wealth, fame or success necessary to have your own brand. After all the Daddy's last name is essentially the same as using short hand for being rich, and successful.
I can see how a Talking Yam that makes his money by branding and little else would impress you, but it might not be so impressive to those thinking he actually runs those endeavors. He's a lightweight disguised by the lightweight branding world we live in.
Quote:Kinser 79
Quote:Having problems connecting the dots? Let me help. President Trump will nominate SCOTUS nominees that will be the direct opposite in legal opinions than those the President Clinton will nominate. Is that simple enough for you?
No I fully expect him to nominate SCOTUS justices that are the opposite of Clinton. Honestly that would be a good thing.
Your original point was that SCOTUS justices do not get elected. That is true on the surface. I'm just trying to bring you up past 5th grade understanding - Presidents, who are elected, nominate the justices and a President from one Party is going to nominate someone different than one from the other Party. Just thank me for furthering your knowledge base, and move on - there's a whole big world of dot connecting that awaits you!
Quote:Kinser79
Quote:Quote:Trump will do whatever gives him the most applause. The largest applause always comes just before a war gets started. The NeoCons will convince his big hands ego that it will get the biggest stroke available to a President by sending other families' kids to war.
Not happening. If the Neo-Cons thought that was a possibility they would be openly courting him instead of sucking up to HRC. His positions on foreign affairs are pretty consistent from the 1980s to today. He opposes wars of choice, he would prefer to dismantle foreign bases (we can't afford them anyway) and where foreign bases are necessary we should charge the countries where the bases are for the expense of having our military there.
Gad, I can see why you think of the Talking Yam as daddy. Such a rube!
Quote:Kinser79
Quote:Quote:I might say that your biggest problem is your complete dishonesty. I might even say that you're so good at dishonesty that you obviously have some intelligence. However, in the end, most highly dishonest people are proven to be pretty darn stupid.
Actually I've been completely honest here. Your problem Playdude is you're completely divorced from reality. As for the rest of it, continuous use of Ad Homs aren't helping your case.
No. You have not only been dishonest, you've refuse to even try to argue against the dishonesty you've been nailed on. And yes, I don't live in your dishonest world so I don't share in your 'reality.'
You're entire conjecture of Clinton's criminality is the height of ad hominem attack - you're not understanding that is a clear example of your lack of self awareness. Buy a clue.