• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Everything Is Always Watergate: Clinton Email Edition

pbrauer said:
There was two Top Secret emails on her server. But these emails were sent to her and they didn't have markings on them iidentifying them as such. So how can she be guilty of any thing?
Click to expand...

You don't have to be the person that pulled the trigger for you also to be guilty of murder. You don't have to be the one that is actually pregnant to be responsible for the child that will be born (the father in this instance). And, you don't have to be the person initiating the transfer of classified information to be guilty of receiving and/or possessing classified information in an unlawful manner.

Also, the number is a lot more than just two now.
 
Beaudreaux said:
You don't have to be the person that pulled the trigger for you also to be guilty of murder. You don't have to be the one that is actually pregnant to be responsible for the child that will be born (the father in this instance). And, you don't have to be the person initiating the transfer of classified information to be guilty of receiving and/or possessing classified information in an unlawful manner.

Also, the number is a lot more than just two now.
Click to expand...

How many are there now?
 
The Mark said:
I'm thinking the key term here is "Knowingly".

Unless I missed something, it's fairly clear that at least a few classified bits of info were housed on her server for some period of time.

But the question then becomes whether she knew that, or didn't...which is the difference between legal proceedings against her or legal proceedings against a member of her staff.
Click to expand...



Well let's ask my favorite question: If this is true what else must be true?

If it is true that she did not knowingly house classified emails on her personal server, what else myst be true?

She was probably not aware that she was the Secretary of State. Probably not aware that the server was not the official State department server. Not aware that she was dealing with foreign heads of state. Not aware that anything the foreign heads of state said to her in private was classified. Anything on any topic for any reason.

We can also assume that she did not know the rules, the laws, the guide lines, the policies and the regulations.

In short, we must assume that she is a completely uninformed idiot with not the first clue what the Secretary of State does for a living.

This is what must be true for her to not have knowingly done what she obviously, actually did do.

Still, I suppose it's possible that what was obviously done was not done knowingly. It's hard to conceive of this, but it's possible.
 
pbrauer said:
Could you please tell me how Hillary could have removed an email from her server.
Click to expand...

Removing would be from the premise of the controlled areas of the Department of State.

But to your uninformed question, she could have hired a firm expert at this process to remove emails from her server.

Oh, look! She did do that.

News from The Associated Press
 
code1211 said:
Well let's ask my favorite question: If this is true what else must be true?

If it is true that she did not knowingly house classified emails on her personal server, what else myst be true?

She was probably not aware that she was the Secretary of State. Probably not aware that the server was not the official State department server. Not aware that she was dealing with foreign heads of state. Not aware that anything the foreign heads of state said to her in private was classified. Anything on any topic for any reason.

We can also assume that she did not know the rules, the laws, the guide lines, the policies and the regulations.

In short, we must assume that she is a completely uninformed idiot with not the first clue what the Secretary of State does for a living.

This is what must be true for her to not have knowingly done what she obviously, actually did do.

Still, I suppose it's possible that what was obviously done was not done knowingly. It's hard to conceive of this, but it's possible.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying she ACTUALLY didn't know, although that's technically possible. I'm wondering if claiming she didn't know would be a valid legal tactic though.
 
code1211 said:
Well let's ask my favorite question: If this is true what else must be true?

If it is true that she did not knowingly house classified emails on her personal server, what else myst be true?

She was probably not aware that she was the Secretary of State. Probably not aware that the server was not the official State department server. Not aware that she was dealing with foreign heads of state. Not aware that anything the foreign heads of state said to her in private was classified. Anything on any topic for any reason.

We can also assume that she did not know the rules, the laws, the guide lines, the policies and the regulations.

In short, we must assume that she is a completely uninformed idiot with not the first clue what the Secretary of State does for a living.

This is what must be true for her to not have knowingly done what she obviously, actually did do.

Still, I suppose it's possible that what was obviously done was not done knowingly. It's hard to conceive of this, but it's possible.
Click to expand...

Is it possible she used other forms of communication other than email?
 
code1211 said:
Removing would be from the premise of the controlled areas of the Department of State.

But to your uninformed question, she could have hired a firm expert at this process to remove emails from her server.

Oh, look! She did do that.

News from The Associated Press
Click to expand...

Wiping the server clean or hiring somebody to delete the emails, doesn't eliminate those same emails at the sending / receiving site.
 
The Mark said:
I'm not saying she ACTUALLY didn't know, although that's technically possible. I'm wondering if claiming she didn't know would be a valid legal tactic though.
Click to expand...

I don't know.

Right now her campaign is a plodding, sullen, dower dirge like progression of tedium.

I'm not sure any of this makes any difference to her electability.

In another month, she'll have become a footnote to this election.
 
pbrauer said:
Wiping the server clean or hiring somebody to delete the emails, doesn't eliminate those same emails at the sending / receiving site.
Click to expand...

That is why everyone who sent or received emails from Hillary is also culpable in this.
 
code1211 said:
That is why everyone who sent or received emails from Hillary is also culpable in this.
Click to expand...

That's an absurd statement, I think you should this down to the conspiracy forum.
 
pbrauer said:
That's an absurd statement, I think you should this down to the conspiracy forum.
Click to expand...

Actually it isn't absurd all that far fetched. It is a point that is being investigated.

Washington (CNN)An April 2011 email from an aide to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, publicly released three months ago helped spark intelligence community concerns about classified information on Clinton's private email server, according to U.S. officials briefed on the matter.

The email forwarded by Clinton adviser Huma Abedin to Mrs. Clinton provided an update of the deteriorating security situation in eastern Libya and included information that was sensitive at the time about tentative plans for then-special envoy Chris Stevens to possibly evacuate. Stevens, who later became ambassador, was killed in the September 2012 terrorist attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi.
Click to expand...

The Abedin email was released publicly this past May, among the first batch of emails released by the State Department. But it prompted concern from the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community because it contained military information still deemed classified, according to officials briefed on the matter. The State Department later declassified the email because the military information was outdated and no longer sensitive.
Click to expand...

Clinton aides' email on Benghazi sparked intel concerns - CNNPolitics.com
 
Ockham said:
Oh I understand perfectly.

Of course the opinion doesn't make the statement fact... it's an OPINION. No one is claiming it such an opinion changes to fact - many people's opinions are in fact false but that does not invalidate it is their OPINION. As I clearly stated before and let me reiterate it since you did not apparently comprehend it the first time:

"An opinion is not necessarily based on fact but can be a judgement, a feeling or even a belief. There is no right or wrong."

You can say such an opinion is not based in fact but that does not invalidate that it's still someone's OPINION. You're agreement or disagreement of someone's opinion does not invalidate it as an opinion.

Provably false based on what --- others opinions you agree with? Facts you deem worthy? Perhaps there are other opinions and other facts which you do not see as credible and the other person does. That makes your opinion correct and the other person's opinion incorrect... a nice tidy little world but not one based in reality.


No it's means it's their opinion... that you do not deem it credible doesn't invalidate it's still their opinion (for the third time).

I've lapped you on this subject 3 times. :lamo

Now that I know it bothers you I'll specifically go out of my way to use it incorrectly. What's you're opinion on that?
Click to expand...

Your inability to understand bores me.

Someone said "Hillary is a liar," to which the truth of whether or not the opinion was true (all opinions are true) was not under debate, only the content of the opinion.

"My opinion is that Hitler was black."

Nobody will say "it is not true that your opinion was that Hitler was black," however they may contend that "Hitler was not black."

I hope that clears it up for you.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Analogy - breaking the law is breaking the law, regardless of scale. How about this one: She's not really pregnant since she's only two months pregnant, versus actually being full blown pregnant as she would be at 9 months. You see, the scale of a state of being is irrelevant. You either are pregnant or you aren't, you either killed a person or you didn't, and Hillary either broke the law by having classified emails on her private server or she didn't.

You, in your own post, stated that she did in fact have classified emails on her private server and that is and was against the law. So, that means that you, yourself, have actually determined that she broke the law, just like the rest of us have. You just ignore the facts that you type in your own posts? I don't understand exactly how that works, but I'm impressed by your persistence.
Click to expand...

You're right- so tell me why you're letting Colin Powell off the hook ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom