WarTim 3,456 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 The law was in place when she took the oath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,424 Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 The law was in place when she took the oath. From my reading of the dailykos article, (if they got it right) the regulations were not ordered written by POTUS until about the time she left. The Regs werent actually written until about 6 months or so ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFTiger 282 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 How will they spin this to blame Republicans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 DKW......I think you are right but it is my understanding it was WH policy for everyone. And if she e-mailed classified info that is a felony any time. We may have just hit the tip of an iceberg. No one can for certainty at this point she didn't replace her server at some point in time. The Clintons are smart. She won't go down easy. She is battle hardened in dealing with issues of this kind over many years. Here you go. http://www.bloomberg...gh-not-security http://freebeacon.com/politics/is-the-mysterious-eric-hoteham-actually-longtime-clinton-aide-eric-hothem/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 If i was conducting any shady business i wouldn't do it through ANY emails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,424 Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 If i was conducting any shady business i wouldn't do it through ANY emails. And that is or was the point. Up until now, sifting thru emails of any true big fish in DC will get you almost nothing because they damaging stuff is deleted already.If there is anything on Lois Lerner, it is because she is just not that bright. As to your point, get a private cell, maybe even a burnable cell, and just text anything nefarious. The take-away is that these laws/loopholes were not closed so as to benefit the corrupt ones in DC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,876 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 The law was in place when she took the oath. From my reading of the dailykos article, (if they got it right) the regulations were not ordered written by POTUS until about the time she left. The Regs werent actually written until about 6 months or so ago. It was at the least a very bad practice, but it's not clear any laws were necessarily broken. Still, a stupid, unforced error in terms of perception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Holy cow TexT, we agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 The law was in place when she took the oath. From my reading of the dailykos article, (if they got it right) the regulations were not ordered written by POTUS until about the time she left. The Regs werent actually written until about 6 months or so ago. Thank you. That's as I understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 If i was conducting any shady business i wouldn't do it through ANY emails. Seriously. That's what "lunch" is for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 That's pretty pathetic when the only defense you can throw up is that other people do it. Some one apparently missed one of the very first lessons in their childhood. Who said this in a thread related to VA errors? "Yeah, private hospitals never make errors." Well, close but not exactly. Here's my defense: I don't recall what sparked that response, but I was referring to the reality of all of our hospital systems, private or VA. That reality represents system failures, not unethical or criminal behavior. This is about taking responsibility for an ethical decision. Justifying immoral or unethical acts by pointing out others who are also guilty is in completely different class than my hospital post. That mean seem like an overly subtle distinction to you, but it's sincere. P.S.: I am impressed you went back and found that. Kudos for the effort! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,424 Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 HRC: She is all against the Bush43 Admin using secret, non-govt, email accounts...until she doe the same thing two years later... http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/03/flashback-hillary-attacks-bush-officials-for-secret-email-accounts-video/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,424 Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 That's pretty pathetic when the only defense you can throw up is that other people do it. Some one apparently missed one of the very first lessons in their childhood. Who said this in a thread related to VA errors? "Yeah, private hospitals never make errors." Well, close but not exactly. Here's my defense: I don't recall what sparked that response, but I was referring to the reality of all of our hospital systems, private or VA. That reality represents system failures, not unethical or criminal behavior. This is about taking responsibility for an ethical decision. Justifying immoral or unethical acts by pointing out others who are also guilty is in completely different class than my hospital post. That mean seem like an overly subtle distinction to you, but it's sincere. You want to try again on keeping two sets of books for appointments, so as to gain the huge bonuses, as not being an ethical failure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Are you suggesting that, David Petraeus is a victim? Petraeus was not a political insider. If he had been they would have protected him. So you're saying that some people are more equal under the law than others? George Orwell would be proud. Hilary wont be protected because the job of SoS is far too high profile with too high of a security clearance for serious violations to be winked at by Congress. Hell, she's been issued a bunch of new subpoenas in the last 48 hours. If BlueVue starts a sentence with "So you're saying......." he has conjured up a straw man argument to end the sentence. Every. Single. Time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptau 169 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 One of her ambassadors also used personal e-mail for official state department communications. Ambassador to Kenya, Scott Gration was a former USAF Major General and Obama supporter was forced to resign in 2012. http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/06/29/scathing-internal-report-prompted-gration-resignation/ But Gration’s independent streak and insistence on doing things his own way, outside of the interagency policy process, ran afoul of the embassy staff in Nairobi almost immediately. Multiple sources familiar with the disputes confirmed reports Friday that Gration preferred to use his Gmail account for official business and set up private offices in his residence — and an embassy bathroom — to conduct business outside the purview of the embassy staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptau 169 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Are you suggesting that, David Petraeus is a victim? Petraeus was not a political insider. If he had been they would have protected him. So you're saying that some people are more equal under the law than others? George Orwell would be proud. Hilary wont be protected because the job of SoS is far too high profile with too high of a security clearance for serious violations to be winked at by Congress. Hell, she's been issued a bunch of new subpoenas in the last 48 hours. If BlueVue starts a sentence with "So you're saying......." he has conjured up a straw man argument to end the sentence. Every. Single. Time. Some people are more equal, right? Isn't that the big flaw in society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 That's pretty pathetic when the only defense you can throw up is that other people do it. Some one apparently missed one of the very first lessons in their childhood. Who said this in a thread related to VA errors? "Yeah, private hospitals never make errors." Well, close but not exactly. Here's my defense: I don't recall what sparked that response, but I was referring to the reality of all of our hospital systems, private or VA. That reality represents system failures, not unethical or criminal behavior. This is about taking responsibility for an ethical decision. Justifying immoral or unethical acts by pointing out others who are also guilty is in completely different class than my hospital post. That mean seem like an overly subtle distinction to you, but it's sincere. You want to try again on keeping two sets of books for appointments, so as to gain the huge bonuses, as not being an ethical failure? I don't know. Does that violate the law? If so, then it's a crime. But I am not going to make assumptions why a person might want to keep more than one appointment log. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Are you suggesting that, David Petraeus is a victim? Petraeus was not a political insider. If he had been they would have protected him. So you're saying that some people are more equal under the law than others? George Orwell would be proud. Hilary wont be protected because the job of SoS is far too high profile with too high of a security clearance for serious violations to be winked at by Congress. Hell, she's been issued a bunch of new subpoenas in the last 48 hours. If BlueVue starts a sentence with "So you're saying......." he has conjured up a straw man argument to end the sentence. Every. Single. Time. Some people are more equal, right? Isn't that the big flaw in society? But no one is more equal under the law (statutorily), with a very few exceptions. Inequalities come from bending the process of the human/law interaction. Sometimes to the point of breaking the law. And of course by being rich which gives you an advantage in everything. So, to answer your question, yes, inequality in our system is a fault if the goal is to achieve perfect equality, which is impossible IMO. But my complaint about Blue is that he tends to extrapolate radical interpretations of one's post, instead of just asking for clarification. This wasn't his best example. I'll choose another later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptau 169 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 If i was conducting any shady business i wouldn't do it through ANY emails. Seriously. That's what "lunch" is for. Richard Scrushy was not convicted in his fraud trail in Birmingham mostly due to a sympathetic jury, but also because he never wrote anything down when ordering illegal activities at HealthSouth. Unfortunately for him he messed up bribing Siegelman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 And the taker of the bribe (Sigelman) a politician got out of jail earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,424 Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/03/04/mediamatters_founder_david_brock_defends_hillary_from_msnbc_sloppy_journalism_is_that_your_legal_opinion.html When Mika tells you you are on another planet... DAVID BROCK: Yeah, because the piece didn't stand up to scrutiny after it was published. There's an allegation very prominent in the subhead of this article yesterday that Hillary Clinton may have broken federal law. The only named source they have to support this allegation, Jason Banks who was the highest ranking lawyer in the national archive, said after the piece was published that no law was broken. So the story is wrong. It's based on a false premise. The reporter seems to be digging his heels in and now giving his opinion that Hillary Clinton broke the law, but they don't have any independent legal authority that we did see to make that case. I think the article was really sloppily done, it had innuendo in it that was false, we're saying New York Times, look at your journalism, and if you find problems, you know, let readers know and correct this as prominently as it was splashed on the paper yesterday. That is right out of the mid 1990s dodge and spin used over and over again by Gore when he was trying to explain why he received foreign cash during the 1996 campaign. he blamed the lack of a "independent legal authority" that he could go to to get the law explained to him. Folks, this so weak... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptau 169 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 And the taker of the bribe (Sigelman) a politician got out of jail earlier. Siegelman got out for awhile as they appealed his conviction. He lost and they sent him back to serve his sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,463 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 The problem is not who is taking foreign cash. The problem is that everyone is taking foreign cash, both in the form of campaign donations and, lobbying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU_Tiger_88 417 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Plain and simple if she passed any classified material through this email account she violated law. Petreous (sp?) just got two years for sharing classified info...heck he had classified material sitting in his house which is a violation....oh and she backed up here email on Google if I am not mistaken....I have known people to loose their clearance for less... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Are you suggesting that, David Petraeus is a victim? Petraeus was not a political insider. If he had been they would have protected him. So you're saying that some people are more equal under the law than others? George Orwell would be proud. Hilary wont be protected because the job of SoS is far too high profile with too high of a security clearance for serious violations to be winked at by Congress. Hell, she's been issued a bunch of new subpoenas in the last 48 hours. If BlueVue starts a sentence with "So you're saying......." he has conjured up a straw man argument to end the sentence. Every. Single. Time. Some people are more equal, right? Isn't that the big flaw in society? Are you suggesting that, David Petraeus is a victim? Petraeus was not a political insider. If he had been they would have protected him. So you're saying that some people are more equal under the law than others? George Orwell would be proud. Hilary wont be protected because the job of SoS is far too high profile with too high of a security clearance for serious violations to be winked at by Congress. Hell, she's been issued a bunch of new subpoenas in the last 48 hours. If BlueVue starts a sentence with "So you're saying......." he has conjured up a straw man argument to end the sentence. Every. Single. Time. Some people are more equal, right? Isn't that the big flaw in society? Actually its not a straw man if you read Itchy's post wherein he asserted that Hillary would be protected because she was a political insider. My statement was perfectly consistent with itchy's reasoning. However, in this case it is a false assumption for a number of reasons. With the position of SoS comes a security clearance that is equal to that of the President. The fact that she conducted State business on an unsecured personal server that was subject to easily being hacked is no small matter of protocol that is going to be quickly dispatched into yesterday's news cycle. It also is not helpful that the Clinton's claim was proven false that they were not accepting foreign govt contributions to their foundation while she was SoS and from countries that sponsor terrorism no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.