Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Um, no. What does that have to do with anything? Is it her responsibility to check the classification status of each email she receives on her private server before receiving it? That makes no sense.
The point of the investigation is that Clinton, knowingly or accidentally, used her private server to send or receive classified information in violation of Federal law. If the emails on her server were not classified when she sent or received them, then there was no violation of the law. Q.E.D.
edited 29th Jan '16 2:23:33 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"False. Blatantly false, in fact.
Well, maybe you're using "should" in the "ethics as I personally define it" sense rather than a legal sense, in which case, whatever floats your boat.
edited 29th Jan '16 2:26:01 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Using private email servers was standard practice at State due to the antiquated nature of their official systems. Are we really going to go over this again? There's no meat on those bones; it's all a witch hunt by Congress in an attempt to tarnish Clinton's campaign. It won't work, guys.
edited 29th Jan '16 2:27:13 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Why did Clinton scold another State employee for using a private account, while feigning ignorance over her own use?
http://gawker.com/hillary-clinton-sent-private-email-expressing-surprise-1751826261
edited 29th Jan '16 2:29:30 PM by SolipsistOwl
![]()
Who cares? It's political white noise. Let it go.
Edit: Clinton could fart at a political event and the GOP would turn it into a year-long Congressional investigation.
edited 29th Jan '16 2:32:32 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!""Her various connections and crimes". /sigh
If you investigated me as much as the GOP has investigated Clinton, you'd turn up some theoretically criminal offense I committed as a teenager.
It's a neverending fountain of stupid, this. Let it go.
edited 29th Jan '16 2:34:45 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"President Clinton deregulated the banking industry and Wall Street.
Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, post-presidency, have received over $150 MILLION from speaking fees to Goldman Sachs and other organizations connected to the 2008 banking crash. That's corruption.
edited 29th Jan '16 2:35:10 PM by SolipsistOwl
Such revelations are silly to guess though, better wait until the FBI pronounces itself on it.
Before it though, I am more inclined to believing Clinton did not know or even care because seriously man. I work at an IT company and even the higher ranks here seldom know where shit is, and I have seen it in other governments and companies. Its basic administrative bureocracy misplaced crap that is to be expected anywhere.
That is actually pretty standard money for consultants and stuff overtime, specially from figures of renown, and particularly if that has been spread over by 10 years. Yes, it is a ridiculous amount, but it is not for the singular case of the Clintons.
What, you think they give speeches for free? You can cash in a sweet life after being president of the U.S just for renown alone even if you did squat.
Would be more suspicious if they DID do those speeches for free...
edited 29th Jan '16 2:37:40 PM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes![]()
Possibly as Bernie Sanders defines it, but in Washington, that's called "business". Not liking it is not the same thing as it being criminal corruption.
Trying to suborn democracy with an unfounded, politically motivated witch hunt is corruption.
edited 29th Jan '16 2:36:12 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Look, I'm as happy as the next Democrat to lament the money-worship and hypocrisy inherent to our political system, but singling out Hillary Clinton over it is sour grapes. It's an attempt to preemptively poison her political campaign when you can't have a substantive debate over the issues.
No other candidate has received this kind of scrutiny, and it's truly amazing how little misbehavior has turned up after all of it.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Clinton is running for president. Why shouldn't we scrutinize her?
And it's not as if journalists haven't also been covering Sanders, O'Malley, Trump, and the Republican candidates, and their sources of funding.
I'm more than happy to allow Clinton to lose the nomination and fade into obscurity, but until that happens she should be scrutinized.
Seriously though dude. Speakers make ridiculous amounts of money. The Clinton-Sachs connection is dubious. Just look at the ridiculous charges someone like Magic Johnson can charge you just for showing up to say something obvious
See http://www.keyspeakers.com/
or http://www.prosportspeaker.com/
.
edited 29th Jan '16 2:45:24 PM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesYeah. While the email thing makes me iffy on principle, I've come to realize that what Clinton did was, at worst, common practice at the time, if not now. As I said last time this came up: while "everyone does it" is no excuse, the fact of it is that, to me at least, it doesn't make Clinton look like a worse choice then the relevant Republicans.
edited 29th Jan '16 2:46:07 PM by sgamer82
But nobody else is under scrutiny. Where are the Republican lawmakers getting grilled for using private email servers? Hell where are the other high ranking officials besides Clinton?
If this level of suspicion was being applied to everyone in the White House and the Capitol Building then I'd be fine but it's only about Clinton.
This is just a political witch hunt. Republicans have admitted so themselves.
edited 29th Jan '16 2:47:58 PM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?

I'm not going to discuss the merits of that argument because I don't know the contents of the emails.
However, if you get a document on your desk or in your email that has no classification stamp on it, you can operate under the reasonable assumption that it is not classified. Logic. One can assert that it should have been, but that is an ex post facto argument that is inadmissible in a hypothetical criminal proceeding.
edited 29th Jan '16 2:21:39 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"