Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy

[Kinser79]

(05-26-2016, 01:22 PM)playwrite 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 .

Spoken like someone who has never and will never handle classified information.  Information that could reasonably considered classified, like say concerning a negotiation with a foreign power--IE the thing that the state department does which is what the Secretary of State heads--does not require a marking of being classified to be considered classified.  Being marked as classified after the fact is totally irrelevant.

Quote:Well, 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.

If that is your line of argumentation then she did not have control over who had access to the server in question and therefore if she put any information at all on it that was classified she was either criminally negligent or incompotent.  See here is the issue, what did Hillary do.  I could care less what some moronic intern did.

Quote:Your claim was criminality, and I pointed out that "intent" is required.

Intent is not necessary to this question.  But if you want to make it one, should HRC be shown to have put classified information onto this server, which itself is illegal, then either she had to have intended to do so or she is incompetent to manage classified information and thus incompetent to be President.

Quote: You refused to tell us what you believe would be her intent

Unlike Eric, or you for that matter, I don't pretend to know the intentions of others.  I'm more concerned with what others do.

Quote:; 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. 

You'll excuse if me if I don't indulge your fantasies.  But I do find it hilarious that you would think a former communist is involved with the tea party not that that body really even functions as anything anymore.  I guess I should be grateful that you are at least stuck in a year that is part of the current decade, which is more than I can say for most Boomers.

Quote:It would seem the fundamental problem here is you don't know how emails work.

Never claimed to be an IT speciallist but I would suspect that one writes an email, sends it via the originating server through the internet's various networks to the receiving server.

Quote: 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.

Says the guy who claims that Hillary Clinton is honest with 20 years of public life that says otherwise.  That being said, it seems you don't seem to understand that it isn't what others send to you that matters in this instance, it is what is done once that information has been sent.  In my case, and hopefully yours but one can never be too sure with you--you do believe that inflation can happen without consequences after all--that I happen to delete those emails usually without reading them.  Spam filters are good for that.

Quote:First, being in trouble with the Library is not criminality - glad to see you've backed off your original dufus claim.  

Never claimed that it was criminal.  BUT it does speak to her integrity which is only a problem for those who claim HRC has any.

Quote: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.

Largely speaking the Boomer elite in the government is incompetent.  I should know having been in the Navy, which is by the way a Governmental body, I had to deal with their incompetence on a daily basis.  That being said I've only heard of General Powell and Secretary Rice receiving emails to governmental servers that were later classified.  I've not heard of them receiving those same emails to personal servers which are not under the Government's various IT protections--which at least were at the beginning of the decade staffed largely by Xers.  As usual sweeping up the messes Boomers make but I digress.  The simple fact here is that by arguing "Well, Powell received emails from places like @hotmail.com it is the same...durr." is comparing apples to patio furniture.

Quote:I'm not the one making the claim of criminality or incompetence; that would be you.

I've made no such claim.  I've stated that if there is classified information on these servers she has committed a felony.  I have made a further claim that should she admit to committing that felony, and then claim she didn't know that she had committed a felony not only is she a felon but she is also incompetent.  What matters is not the claim of competence (I already expect her to be incompetent because I've seen no evidence of competence at all) but whether a felony was committed.

In short the "I didn't know" excuse is such a non-excuse as to preclude her from being President.

Quote: 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.

No you're making a claim here that she did not commit a felony.  When we know the following facts:

1.  Hillary Clinton had a server that was not under the Federal Government's IT protections programs.
2.  Hillary Clinton used this server while she was secretary of state.
3.  Secretaries of State by the nature of their job create and receive classified information all the time.
4.  Having classified information on an unsecured server (which is what this private server was, seriously the encryption was 64,000 times weaker than for a dating website!) is a felony.
5.  Being unmarked as classified does not mean that an item is in fact not classified.

As such the only person here making an extraordinary claim here Playdude is you.  You've made the claim that there was no felony because there was no classified information on that server.  So I must conclude that you either have access to the contents of this server, or you're talking out your ass.

I think it safe to bet you're talking out your ass.

Quote:Trying to embellish your sophomoric misdirection attempt is not going to gloss over your indifference to those who actually SENT classified information,

Who sent the information classified or not is not relevant to the question of whether HRC is honest or trustworthy.  As for my embelishment...it certainly triggered you. (an other instance where an evil grin emoji would be great)

Quote:and that your outrage is only another manifestation of just another CHDS loser.

Ah name calling, always good to win an argument.  Problem is that only works on the easily triggered.  Unlike some, I have control over my emotions.

Quote: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?

Personally I think Daddy should fire his stylist and make up person.  Unfortunately for you that isn't a reason to reject him as a political candidate, however, HRC being dishonest and untrustworthy are very good reasons to reject her.  People who live in glass houses should throw stones Playdude.

Quote:It's not if the classification benchmarks have changed; the information at the time would not have been classified by anyone at the time.

That would only be true if the classification benchmarks have been changed, in which case the dates become vitally important.  However, in most instances of handling classified information (which I've done, and apparently you haven't) it is readily apparent to anyone with a high school education that something that looks like it should be secret probably is.  It isn't like the US Government doesn't provide training on this sort of thing.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/12/state-...fied-docs/

I can't speak for the DOS, but the DOD has a week long course on the subject, and those who regularly handle classified information have to undergo that training annually.

Quote: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.

Gee...I wonder could it be this?

me in this very post Wrote:When we know the following facts:

1.  Hillary Clinton had a server that was not under the Federal Government's IT protections programs.
2.  Hillary Clinton used this server while she was secretary of state.
3.  Secretaries of State by the nature of their job create and receive classified information all the time.
4.  Having classified information on an unsecured server (which is what this private server was, seriously the encryption was 64,000 times weaker than for a dating website!) is a felony.
5.  Being unmarked as classified does not mean that an item is in fact not classified.

Quote: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. 

Again, the question is not receiving emails, it is sending them to an unsecure server.  Let us just suppose you are right and that the State Department's servers leak like a colander, for which I doubt you have any evidence for.  Then that is a problem that the State Department itself must address.  However, we are talking about classified information, which is most likely on this server in question, which is known to have encryption 64,000 times less powerful than that of a dating website.

But beyond that even the State Department itself is finding problems with Clinton's handling of classified information and conducting governmental business in unapproved and potentially unlawful ways.

A nice article from that well known Right-Wing-Rag called The Guardian

Quote: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??? 

I've already presented you with facts in this very post, facts that you should have already known without me having to list them.  Facts that my seven year old niece knows.

 

Quote:You live in a different universe that I do.

I do.  It is called reality.  You wouldn't like it much.

Quote: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?

I really don't care what the IRS says.  The fact remains he's being audited and the advice of his attorneys is that he should not release his tax returns.  I don't know about where you're from, but where I'm from smart people do what their attorneys advise them to do.  Even so, the fact that he has tax returns indicates that he pays taxes and releasing these returns is not a requirement to being president.  The practice started with Nixon of all people.  Probably as a political ploy of some sort.

When Daddy is president his tax returns are a matter of public record, his tax returns as a candidate are the records of a private citizen until such time as he becomes President and he is under no obligation to release those tax returns by law. So even if he was hiding something silly like "not being as rich as he claims to be" as if that were a bar to the Presidency it all will come out eventually.

Quote: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.

You do realize that for every ten things that he does in the business world that is branding there is one thing he does that is real business, right?  What impresses me is that he was able to turn 1 million dollars into billions of dollars and most of that BEFORE he inherited the rest of the fortune.  The man has real entrepreneurial spirit.  I kind of hope the Trump family doesn't experience the shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations phenomenon.

Quote: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!

You're really pathetic.  I think you've confused my complaint about an oversight by the framers of the constitution with a lack of understanding how the constitution works.  I knew you're bad at reading comprehension and critical thinking but this is a serious problem, it seems you can't read forum posts written in on a third grade level!

The fact is that Trump appointing persons who would be the complete opposite of the persons Clinton would appoint is a good thing.  An absence of activist judges on the court would be great, as would a stricter interpretation of the Constitution.  It would go a long way to pulling up some of the weeds that have grown in the foundations of the Republic.

That being said, I do still think that subjecting SCOTUS justices to at least retention votes (as happens in many states) would be a fundamentally good idea.

Quote:Gad, I can see why you think of the Talking Yam as daddy.  Such a rube!

Translation:  I have no argument so insert ad hom.

Quote: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.'

First, I've not been dishonest here.  Second, you've not nailed me for any dishonesty--which is impossible due to me not being dishonest.  Kind of how honesty and dishonesty work you know.  Third, so you're admitting you don't live in reality.  

Quote: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.

Yes, it is entirely an ad hom attack to speculate that the Secretary of State receives and issues classified information that is going to an unsecured server that has probably already been hacked YHWH knows whom and that she has other grave ethical problems based on evidence, common sense and known history.  

Apparently you've forgotten what the topic of this thread is...HRC and her being honest and trustworthy.  The evidence for her being either, much less for both, is exceedingly thin and you're left calling me, and anyone else who isn't a Hillary Bot names and calling the GOP Nominee Yam head (or whatever...I seriously can't be bothered to keep up with your insults toward Daddy).