Data from Clinton's calandar seems to be missing...

[ivwshane]

So you can't defend her so you resort to attacking Trump. We've been discussing Hillary and the consequences of her actions. Trump is an idiot, and a POS. Because I'm looking at Hillary does not mean I embrace Trump. All you have to find is where I have.

Now back to Hillary. I've mentioned that she's legally liable for her handling of defense related information. Without diverting, am I right or wrong? One or the other. Other people are responsible for what they do. She is too.

I think she is responsible for what she did. What exactly do you think her punishment should be if she's found guilty of something? What do you think she would be guilty of?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think she is responsible for what she did. What exactly do you think her punishment should be if she's found guilty of something? What do you think she would be guilty of?

What she gets is dependent on what happened. If she's merely irresponsible there's no law against that as far as I know. If on the other hand it were found that her system was hacked and defense information was obtained then she's liable for the consequences for lack of due diligence. What should happen? I'll wait for the particulars. A fine may be appropriate in some case, if there was a serious breach and it was found that she committed a gross disregard? Throw the book at her like anyone else in her position. This is SoS, not a janitor, and that office has needs and responsibilities. In the case of Powell mentioned earlier, if his actions led to a breach then the same thing. Future SoS? The same. This is serious business, not a political turf war.

The Espionage Act has been in place a very long time for very good reasons. The world has not become a kinder gentler place.

Anyway I'll not pronounce sentence unless there's a finding to this effect and then it depends on just what happened in context. For now I don't have enough data.

My point is that some people believe there is nothing of real concern, and I disagree, there is potential for it to be otherwise. Note potential.

 

[Jhhnn]

So you can't defend her so you resort to attacking Trump. We've been discussing Hillary and the consequences of her actions. Trump is an idiot, and a POS. Because I'm looking at Hillary does not mean I embrace Trump. All you have to find is where I have.

Now back to Hillary. I've mentioned that she's legally liable for her handling of defense related information. Without diverting, am I right or wrong? One or the other. Other people are responsible for what they do. She is too.

I did defend her. Nobody is completely honest, particularly politicians. We're simply left with a matter of comparative advantage in selecting the next President. By all rational measure Hillary is the more truthful of the two in this campaign, something that needs to be acknowledged by her detractors.

The rest? you laid out a fanciful scenario leading to indictment and now back pedal into generality. I'll just let real lawyers sort it out.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I did defend her. Nobody is completely honest, particularly politicians. We're simply left with a matter of comparative advantage in selecting the next President. By all rational measure Hillary is the more truthful of the two in this campaign, something that needs to be acknowledged by her detractors.

The rest? you laid out a fanciful scenario leading to indictment and now back pedal into generality. I'll just let real lawyers sort it out.

Trump is rated as a bigger liar. Hillary less so. If one commits a crime how should that change the outcome?

Oh, note I said there were real potential consequences. I presented the law which addressed it. I don't trust Hillary as far as I can throw her. I don't trust Trump either. You go off the subject and hit Trump which by no stretch of the imagination has anything to do with this. I quoted specific law and circumstances where it could kick in. I mean argue with the law, if you like, but if she's broken it then nothing you say about Trump changes her actions.

Diversion needn't apply.

 

[Moonbeam]

I did defend her. Nobody is completely honest, particularly politicians

Oh shit, that could mean it was no accident politically inexpedient data turned up missing.

 

[Moonbeam]

Trump is rated as a bigger liar. Hillary less so. If one commits a crime how should that change the outcome?

Oh, note I said there were real potential consequences. I presented the law which addressed it. I don't trust Hillary as far as I can throw her. I don't trust Trump either. You go off the subject and hit Trump which by no stretch of the imagination has anything to do with this. I quoted specific law and circumstances where it could kick in. I mean argue with the law, if you like, but if she's broken it then nothing you say about Trump changes her actions.

Diversion needn't apply.

But what if it were better to elect a criminal than an innocent Trump?

 

[Jhhnn]

Trump is rated as a bigger liar. Hillary less so. If one commits a crime how should that change the outcome?

Oh, note I said there were real potential consequences. I presented the law which addressed it. I don't trust Hillary as far as I can throw her. I don't trust Trump either. You go off the subject and hit Trump which by no stretch of the imagination has anything to do with this. I quoted specific law and circumstances where it could kick in. I mean argue with the law, if you like, but if she's broken it then nothing you say about Trump changes her actions.

Diversion needn't apply.

Funny you should mention diversion. Check the topic. How does a difference in the calendar of events vs the daily planning sheets indicate any unlawful activity on which to speculate? Or is it just another exercise in spreading the FUD?

Why would we talk about hillary anyway if she weren't one side of a binary choice in November?

 

[Jhhnn]

The whole thing is remarkably twisted. It's well known that Hillary worked closely with the Treasury Dept, the FRB & the international banking community to stem the cascading collapse of the entire financial community. The fact that it worked is a blessing to us all. So maybe if the documentation in the calendar is a little thin in a few places (60 or so out of thousands) maybe it was because they were kinda busy rather than trying to hide the obvious.

 

[ivwshane]

What she gets is dependent on what happened. If she's merely irresponsible there's no law against that as far as I know. If on the other hand it were found that her system was hacked and defense information was obtained then she's liable for the consequences for lack of due diligence. What should happen? I'll wait for the particulars. A fine may be appropriate in some case, if there was a serious breach and it was found that she committed a gross disregard? Throw the book at her like anyone else in her position. This is SoS, not a janitor, and that office has needs and responsibilities. In the case of Powell mentioned earlier, if his actions led to a breach then the same thing. Future SoS? The same. This is serious business, not a political turf war.

The Espionage Act has been in place a very long time for very good reasons. The world has not become a kinder gentler place.

Anyway I'll not pronounce sentence unless there's a finding to this effect and then it depends on just what happened in context. For now I don't have enough data.

My point is that some people believe there is nothing of real concern, and I disagree, there is potential for it to be otherwise. Note potential.

A lot of people like to throw out the espionage act but one of the key components is that there must be intent.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

A lot of people like to throw out the espionage act but one of the key components is that there must be intent.

Not according to (f). Intent is covered elsewhere in that section, but none is required in this part. The other sections deal with willful acts, but "gross negligence" does not mean intent to divulge. Instead it's exercising due diligence.

Let's take me as a pharmacist. If I willingly harm someone then I am liable for the consequences. If however I do not intend to cause harm, but because of disregard for my duty I am negligent I am still liable. Holding a legally established position (and one cannot be a pharmacist without government permission through licensure), I have an inherent responsibility which cannot be put aside. Lack of intent to harm is not a proof against prosecution.

Whether the Act as it stands is in need of reform I'll not debate, but it is there , and like myself ignorance isn't an excuse that will hold up in court. Note at no time have I suggested even hypothetically that Hillary with intent and malice divulged state secrets. There's no rational reason to believe it based on her history and I dismiss it out of hand.

Again, this is about what could go wrong, not saying "Hillary was hacked!" All that remains to be seen, and like Bush I wouldn't want to see her head in a noose unless there was demonstrated violations of law. Her fitness to serve is a matter for debate. Punishment when there is no wrongdoing is not.

 

[Moonbeam]

The whole thing is remarkably twisted. It's well known that Hillary worked closely with the Treasury Dept, the FRB & the international banking community to stem the cascading collapse of the entire financial community. The fact that it worked is a blessing to us all. So maybe if the documentation in the calendar is a little thin in a few places (60 or so out of thousands) maybe it was because they were kinda busy rather than trying to hide the obvious.

Just don't forget that while liberals are analyzing the light and dark patches on a tiger the conservatives are all up in the trees. Sometimes all that hooting and grunting means something.

 

[Jhhnn]

Just don't forget that while liberals are analyzing the light and dark patches on a tiger the conservatives are all up in the trees. Sometimes all that hooting and grunting means something.

They've been up in the trees a lot over the last 8 years- over the birth certificate, fast & furious, Benghazi, IRS, fake abortion footage, the Iran deal & a lot of other trumped up bullshit as well. It's not like they've spent much time on terra firma. If they did, they'd notice that our problems are largely the result of the leadership they've followed for decades & still do. Trump is just an attempt to affirm what they believe, against all reason.

 

[LunarRay]

Just don't forget that while liberals are analyzing the light and dark patches on a tiger the conservatives are all up in the trees. Sometimes all that hooting and grunting means something.

Yeah but... it seems no one notices the pyroclastic flow about to engulf the region. Trump seems to be doing as much as he can to not be elected and I wonder why and how on earth can he be so dense if that's not the case.

 

[ivwshane]

Just don't forget that while liberals are analyzing the light and dark patches on a tiger the conservatives are all up in the trees. Sometimes all that hooting and grunting means something.

Sometimes? Like the first time? The third time? Tenth? 15th? 30th time? The problem is that the Republicans have been hooting and grunting for thirty years. What makes this time different from all the last time?

 

[Artdeco]

Huma admits Hillary put schedule in burn bag

http://nypost.com/2016/07/04/huma-abedin-admits-that-clinton-burned-daily-schedules/

 

[ivwshane]

Huma admits Hillary put schedule in burn bag

http://nypost.com/2016/07/04/huma-abedin-admits-that-clinton-burned-daily-schedules/

You ever wonder why your information only shows up in tabloids and right wing websites?

 

[Artdeco]

You ever wonder why your information only shows up in tabloids and right wing websites?

That came from an deposition by Judicial Watch.

You have a problem with Judicial Watch?

Abedin made the surprising admission in response to a question about document destruction at the Department of State. A lawyer for Judicial Watch asked: “And during your tenure at the State Department, were you aware of your obligation not to delete federal records or destroy federal records?”

 

[Knowing]

Huma admits Hillary put schedule in burn bag

http://nypost.com/2016/07/04/huma-abedin-admits-that-clinton-burned-daily-schedules/

That's the proper way of disposing of hard copies. Unless she was getting rid of the only copy of the real schedule it's completely above board. If she was getting rid of evidence there'd be no way to prove it because it was burned. The only way this has any value is if someone in her inner circle says she was destroying the real schedule and that can be corroborated with some other evidence.

This one, in a vacuum, is a non starter and it's so trivially easy to defend I'd think it was a slow pitch softball to support the poor downtrodden Hillary narrative.

 

[ivwshane]

That came from an deposition by Judicial Watch.

You have a problem with Judicial Watch?

Lol, you aren't familiar with judicial watch?

 

[Jhhnn]

That's the proper way of disposing of hard copies. Unless she was getting rid of the only copy of the real schedule it's completely above board. If she was getting rid of evidence there'd be no way to prove it because it was burned. The only way this has any value is if someone in her inner circle says she was destroying the real schedule and that can be corroborated with some other evidence.

This one, in a vacuum, is a non starter and it's so trivially easy to defend I'd think it was a slow pitch softball to support the poor downtrodden Hillary narrative.

It's not a softball. It's a desperate attempt to make something out of nothing. The right wing is flinging every turd they can find.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yeah but... it seems no one notices the pyroclastic flow about to engulf the region. Trump seems to be doing as much as he can to not be elected and I wonder why and how on earth can he be so dense if that's not the case.

Density or inexperience? But surely Trump has no more chance of winning the election than he does the primary, right?

 

[Moonbeam]

Sometimes? Like the first time? The third time? Tenth? 15th? 30th time? The problem is that the Republicans have been hooting and grunting for thirty years. What makes this time different from all the last time?

The point is that because you have put them in the 30 times box you will be asleep when they are right and be unwakable. I will not because I don't know anything. The program doesn't take.

 

[ivwshane]

The point is that because you have put them in the 30 times box you will be asleep when they are right and be unwakable. I will not because I don't know anything. The program doesn't take.

Lol. No. It just means I'll need more proof and concrete evidence before I let my gut get the best of me. In fact I'd say I'm more awake and in tune to any actual wrong doing because my senses haven't been overloaded with crap for the past 30 years, aka sleep deprivation.

You not knowing anything is an excuse to be mentally lazy and to let your gut keep your CBD in control of your thinking.

 

[Perknose]

The point is that because you have put them in the 30 times box you will be asleep when they are right and be unwakable. I will not because I don't know anything. The program doesn't take.

When? Careful about your own assumption, Moonie . . . taken by your own program, if you will. 😉

 

[Jhhnn]

Lol. No. It just means I'll need more proof and concrete evidence before I let my gut get the best of me. In fact I'd say I'm more awake and in tune to any actual wrong doing because my senses haven't been overloaded with crap for the past 30 years, aka sleep deprivation.

You not knowing anything is an excuse to be mentally lazy and to let your gut keep your CBD in control of your thinking.

Like this-

https://www.good.is/articles/the-power-of-negative-thinking